Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles 9783666593604, 9783525593608, 9783647593609

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments in cooperation with the “Bibel und Orient” foundation, University of Fribourg/Schwitzerland. edited by Max Küchler (Fribourg), Peter Lampe, Gerd Theißen (Heidelberg) and Jürgen Zangenberg (Leiden)

Band 103

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Korinna Zamfir

Men and Women in the Household of God A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

With this work I wish to honour the memory of Abraham Malherbe, a kind person and an erudite scholar with a special vision of the Greco-Roman environment of the New Testament, of the world of the Pastoral Epistles.      

    

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-59360-8 ISBN 978-3-647-59360-9 (e-book) © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Acknowledgments

The writing of this monograph began at the end of 2006 at the Catholic University of Leuven and eventually led to a habilitation at the University of Regensburg, finalised in 2012. My thanks and deep appreciation go therefore first of all to Joseph Verheyden, professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, for the many enriching conversations that opened valuable insights into early Christianity and the Greco-Roman world, for his careful reading of several drafts of this work, for his critical questions and remarks, and not least for his friendship and thoughtfulness that made my stay in Leuven so special. Warm thanks are due to Tobias Nicklas, professor at the University of Regensburg, for supporting my habilitation at this university, for the critical reading of this work in its progress, for the many ideas and suggestions, just as for his trust and friendship. I owe him the completion of this research with an academic qualification. I also thank Andreas Merkt, professor at the University of Regensburg, member of the board of mentors, and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, professor at the University of Siegen, for assessing this work and for further recommendations. The generous sponsors who sustained my work and the publication of this volume deserve particular gratitude. Without their grant this monograph could not have been written and published. During these years, I have benefited from the excellent library and other facilities of the Theological Faculty in Leuven. For that I thank Mathijs Lambrigts, dean of the faculty at that time, as well as the members of the administrative staff, in particular Ingrid Wouters, Anne Demoulin and Rita Dehaes. During the last year, I have been granted access to the SNTS electronic library, as a member of the Stellenbosch University New Testament Research Association. For that I owe thanks to professors Ulrich Luz and Bernard Lategan. Thanks are due to the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht publishing house, in particular to its managing director, Jörg Persch, his collaborator, Christoph Spill and the editors of the series Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus for accepting this monograph. Lorne R. Zelyck, lecturer at St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, deserves special thanks for reading and correcting the manuscript.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

vi

Acknowledgments

Finally, I need to thank my colleagues Mózes Nóda, Judit Robu and Magda Illyés who supported me in many ways during the completion of this project, as well as my former students, István Csonta, Ottilia Lukács and Hajnalka Tamás for all their assistance.

Cluj, 23rd of January 2013

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Korinna Zamfir

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................. xi 1. Placing the discussion on roles and ministries....................................................... 1 1.1 Placing the Pastoral Epistles ......................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Writings that claim the authority of Paul ............................................................... 2 1.1.2 A Pastoral corpus .................................................................................................... 5 1.1.3 Connections with other Pauline traditions. Struggle for the Pauline legacy ....... 10 1.1.4 Good Christian citizenship, or public versus hidden transcript ........................... 12 1.2 The ideological thrust of the Pastoral Epistles ........................................................... 19 1.2.1 Implementing ideology in the Pastoral Epistles................................................... 19 1.2.2 Controlling religion and vilifying the dissenters.................................................. 27 1.2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 36 1.3 The social background of the Pastoral Epistles.......................................................... 37 1.3.1 The status of Christians in Roman society. Socioeconomic status in the Pastorals..................................................................................................... 38 1.3.2 The ekklƝsia – a religious association?................................................................. 45 1.3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 57 1.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 58

2. The ekklƝsia as oikos and polis of God ................................................................. 60 2.1 From “body of Christ” to “household of God” .......................................................... 64 2.2 Reasons for construing an oikos-ecclesiology............................................................ 66 2.3 EkklƝsia as oikos Theou – a public, sacred and cosmic space. The interrelation between oikos, polis and cosmos................................................................................ 70 2.3.1 EkklƝsia and oikos Theou. The oikos as metaphor for the religious, political and cosmic community............................................................................... 71 2.3.2 The interrelation between oikos, polis and cosmos.............................................. 79 2.3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 84 2.4 Further implications of the oikos-ecclesiology. The division of spaces and roles ... 85 2.4.1 Division of spaces in drama.................................................................................. 87 2.4.2 The roots of the division of spaces and roles: physis and divine will.................. 91 2.4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 97 2.5 Honourable behaviour in the household of God ........................................................ 97 2.5.1 Introductory considerations .................................................................................. 98 2.5.2 Aivdw,j, swfrosu,nh and their gender-specific features ......................................100

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

viii

Contents

2.5.3 Concern with honourable behaviour and public opinion in the Pastoral Epistles............................................................................................106 2.5.4 Timh, in the Pastorals and its background..........................................................109 2.5.5 The honour of holding offices. The virtues of the leaders.................................117 2.5.6 Desisting shame. Solidarity between fi,loi........................................................124 2.5.7 Summary .............................................................................................................126 2.6 Expectations concerning women ..............................................................................127 2.6.1 Hidden body, speech and senses.........................................................................128 2.6.2 Submission and social inconspicuousness .........................................................134 2.6.3 Summary .............................................................................................................137 2.7 Attitudes toward authority in the household of God ................................................138 2.7.1 Preference for strong community government...................................................138 2.7.2 Masters and slaves in the household of God ......................................................140 2.7.3 Attitudes toward the polis. Respect for civil authorities....................................145 2.8 Attitudes toward wealth and the wealthy .................................................................152 2.9 Conclusion.................................................................................................................158

3. The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles................................................... 160 3.1 Teaching and legitimate authority in the oi=koj Qeou/ ...............................................161 3.2 Orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the Pastoral Epistles .................................................165 3.2.1 Falsely called gnosis ...........................................................................................172 3.2.2 Myths and genealogies........................................................................................173 3.2.3 Asceticism ...........................................................................................................174 3.2.4 Assessment of the Gnostic theory ......................................................................175 3.2.5 Jewish features ....................................................................................................176 3.2.6 Summary .............................................................................................................178 3.3 Women and heresy? ..................................................................................................179 3.3.1 (Old) women spreading heresy?.........................................................................181 3.3.2 Idle or heretical widows?....................................................................................181 Excursus. Women’s evil influence (on women)..................................................188 3.3.3 Blaming heretical female disciples or discrediting male teachers? ................... 189 Excursus. Problems with learning and educated women ....................................191 3.3.4 Summary .............................................................................................................194 3.4 Gender, authority and public speech ........................................................................195 3.4.1 The censure of female authority .........................................................................196 3.4.2 Public speech, authority and gender...................................................................206 3.4.3 Conclusion...........................................................................................................216 3.5 Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles ...........................................................217 3.5.1 The man as teacher of the woman ......................................................................219 3.5.2 Women’s exclusion from authority and teaching in 1 Tim 2,11-14..................226 3.5.3 Priority, authority and the argument from creation............................................232 3.5.4 Fall and subordination.........................................................................................243

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Contents

ix

3.5.5 Female teachers of female virtues ......................................................................257 3.6 Motherhood instead of teaching ...............................................................................260 3.6.1 Childbearing – the chance of women to overcome their fallen condition........260 3.6.2 The ideological representation of procreation and motherhood in antiquity ...264 3.6.3 Summary .............................................................................................................277 3.7 Do men have the authority to teach? ........................................................................279 3.7.1 Social background...............................................................................................279 3.7.2 The consequences of institutionalisation............................................................280 3.7.3 Summary .............................................................................................................285 3.8 Conclusion.................................................................................................................286

4. Women on the public stage. Going against an ideology of exclusion ............289 4.1 The reversal of gender roles on the stage and in political theories ..........................290 4.2 The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world ....................................297 4.2.1 Women in everyday life. Visibility due to labour, socialisation and financial responsibility...........................................................................................................297 4.2.2 Women in the public sphere in the Greek East Benefactors and officials .......301 4.2.3 The semi-public presence and ideological representation of Roman women...315 4.2.4 Public presence in the cultic sphere and gender.................................................320 4.3 Women in the ekklƝsia ..............................................................................................337 4.3.1 Women in the Pauline communities...................................................................339 4.3.2 Women in the Pastoral Epistles ..........................................................................346 4.3.3 Wealth, authority and gender..............................................................................362 4.3.4 Additional reasons for women’s exclusion from public religious roles............384 4.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................389

5. Final conclusions ................................................................................................. 393 Abbreviations.......................................................................................................399 Bibliography ........................................................................................................409 Index ....................................................................................................................453

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

At the turn of the first century Christian communities were experiencing significant changes. Against earlier expectations, the parousia became a remote, ever distancing perspective and third generation Christians realised that they were to live in time, in a society marked by the political realities of the Roman Empire. Communities had undergone an ethnic, cultural and social transformation. Christian beliefs were increasingly embraced by nonJews with a Greco-Roman cultural background. At first largely attracting the unprivileged, the ekklƝsiai gradually ceased to be harbours of the destitute and even when only a minority, the better-off started to shape mentalities in a discernible manner. Within communities a variety of interpretations of authoritative figures, sources and beliefs emerged. Teachings and ethical norms were reinterpreted within different sociocultural contexts. Under these circumstances, several Christian communities faced the need to (re)define themselves, their image of the ekklƝsia, just as their relationship to time and to the world in which they lived. Christianity (if we can speak of “Christianity” at this stage) was far from being a monolithic block with uniform answers. A range of canonical and extra-canonical writings shows that Christ-believers could define their relationship to history, to society, to politics and authority and could respond to internal struggles in very different ways. To face external challenges, some strands, like those represented by the Book of Revelation turned against contemporary society and political authority, demonising Roman imperial sway. Other groups, like those producing the deutero- and trito-Paulines, Acts, 1 Peter or 1 Clement, considered for various reasons that Christians should not break entirely with the values and norms of their society and should preserve political loyalty as much as possible. Internal questions also required adequate answers. In some communities eschatological expectations gradually gave place to concern for a respectable life in society. Conversely, ascetic groups embraced a more radical and countercultural lifestyle and often kept alive eschatological hopes. To respond to internal dissensions, some communities reinforced structures and offices, channeled authority, defined and defended one specific understanding of doctrine and ethics, against competing ones. Creating the notions of orthodoxy and tradition became essential elements of this endeavour. Yet, other groups con-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xii

Introduction

tinued to hold a less formal and more fraternal understanding of the church and preserved an interest in charismatic and prophetic ministries. This monograph explores the manner in which the Pastoral Epistles [PE] respond to these internal and external challenges, toward the end of the first century, focusing on the definition of roles and ministries within a changed ecclesiological framework. Facing internal diversity the PE re-interpret Pauline teachings, they create (the notion of) orthodoxy and orthopraxy and emphasise continuity in tradition, based on (a largely fictitious) succession in ministry. They react to the delay of the parousia by promoting a respectable way of life in this world and by producing a hierarchical ecclesiology, anchored in the social and cultural values shared with contemporary society. The PE (re)define thereby social roles, including gender roles, and the ministries performed in the church by men and women. They endorse social integration by adopting mainstream structures, codes and practices of the non-Christian oikos and polis, not as if assimilating foreign material, but because they share the traditional values of their own culture. To achieve these aims the author appeals to the authority of Paul. The investigation focuses on the cultural and, to a lesser degree, on the social background of the station codes and church orders defining the roles and behaviour expected from Christians, men and women belonging to various social strata and the qualifications for ministries, respectively.1 Station codes standardise gender roles (Tit 2,2–5; 1 Tim 2,8–15) and social relations in the household and in the community (Tit 2,9–10; 1 Tim 6,1–2; 6,9–10.17–19). Church orders regulate behaviour in the community, the criteria for acceding to ministries and the exclusion thereof (Tit 1,5–9; 1 Tim 2,1–3,13; 5,9–14.17–20). Exclusion is explicit in the case of women (1 Tim 2,11–12; 5,11–14), implicit for men not belonging to the establishment and probable in the case of slaves. The PE regulate the relations within the ekklƝsia and the Christian oikos, as well as the attitudes Christians should display toward the secular polis. Contemporary sociocultural constructs are used to define social relations, concepts of authority and government, as well as rules and patterns of behaviour in the community. It is essential to keep in mind, however, that these writings do not present the reality of the community to which they are addressed, let alone of the entirety of Christian churches. In virtue of their normative character, they specifically aim at altering ecclesial and social realities, against dissimilar perspectives. In a sense, they are the result and expression of a conflict 1 On church orders in the PE: BARTSCH, Die Anfänge urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen (1965); H. MARSHALL, PE, 28–31, 52, 149, passim; FIORE, PE, 9–12; WAGENER, Ordnung, 69; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 269 (1 Tim 2,1–3,16 as ‘Gemeindeordnung’). On station codes: MARSHALL, PE, 232– 233.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

xiii

between various answers to the questions listed above. These writings reflect a process of creating, re-thinking and re-shaping religious traditions and beliefs, accommodating social patterns to religious contexts and using religious concepts to legitimise social constructs. The PE may be situated in the context of contemporary discussions regarding social and gender roles. In this sense, they are comparable to Greek and Roman sources that express nostalgia for traditional values and endeavour to preserve a hierarchical and segregated construal of society, against a fairly different reality. This contrast between a persistent ideology of exclusion and reality is conspicuous in the case of women. Whereas in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor and to some degree in Rome women are present in the public sphere, the influential ideology defending a clear-cut division between public and private sphere and demanding the exclusion of women from the latter continues to flourish in the imperial period. The presence of women in the public sphere is paralleled by the resurgence of currents emphasising traditional roles and female subordination. The writings of Livy, Tacitus, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch attempt to revive the exemplary values of a (largely fictitious) golden age, in which social and gender roles were clearly established and respected.2 Read in this cultural context, the regulations of the Pastorals concerning women’s participation in the life of the church, the conservative social ethics regarding women and slaves reflect a similar tendency.3

Method and sources This volume proposes an interdisciplinary approach to the topic. The discussion relies on the historical-critical and intertextual interpretation of those passages of the PE that contain station codes and church orders (even when it is not the immediate aim of this study to offer a detailed exegesis of every passage). The specific interest, however, consists in the contextual analysis of these texts. “Contextual” refers here to the cultural and social context of the text, not to that of the reader.4 The interpretation entails thus a 2

The ethical and social views of Livy, Tacitus, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch will be addressed repeatedly. On Plutarch’s conservative social ethics: SWAIN, “Plutarch’s Moral Program”, 85–96; POMEROY, “Reflections on Plutarch”, 33–42. 3 On the PE reflecting a conservative wing of Paulinism: ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 43. 4 Referring to the contextual approach of OT-texts, HALLO notes: “The ‘context’ of a given text may be regarded as its horizontal dimension – the geographical, historical, religious, political and literary setting in which it was created and disseminated. The contextual approach tries to reconstruct and evaluate this setting [...]. Given the frequently very different settings of biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts, however, it is useful to recognize such contrasts as well as comparisons or, if one prefers, to operate with negative as well as positive comparison.” (Context,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xiv

Introduction

critical reading of the biblical texts in their social and cultural context. My main concern regards the cultural environment, the mentalities reflected in moral philosophies, political theories, drama and epigraphic sources. I am particularly interested in the representations of the social world, and the nature of the discourse articulated by ancient authors. Therefore, I compare these New Testament texts with a variety of ancient sources, integrating results from classical scholarship and epigraphy, to disclose mentalities, topoi, and cultural presuppositions.5 My study is inspired mostly by perspectives from intellectual history and to a lesser degree by social history. The interest in ancient sources does not imply the assumption of a direct, genetic relationship, of a literary dependence on the works cited in this volume. I argue that the author reiterates certain topoi and patterns of thought widespread in his cultural environment. I focus on Greek and Roman sources because the author and the community represent a strand of Christianity with a dominantly Hellenistic background, living in a society marked by the realities of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, I do not assume that Christianity came under Greek and Roman influence mainly through the mediation of (Hellenistic) Judaism, but I consider that both Jewish and Christian communities in Asia Minor were part of the same cultural environment and were exposed to the same influences.6

XXV). He further mentions a vertical axis or the intertextual dimension (earlier texts that have inspired a given text, and later ones that came under its influence). I essentially use “contextual approach” in the sense proposed above, and I do not refer to the cultural context of the reader (for the latter: CARVALHO, Ancient Voices, 23, 375, 404). The Greco-Roman background of the PE has been illustrated already by DIBELIUS and SPICQ. The interest for the Greco-Roman context of the NT is well alive in contemporary scholarship. To mention only very few, one notes the Neuer Wettstein, the research on voluntary associations and the NT, the works of KLAUCK (e.g. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums, 1995–1996; Ancient Letters, 2006, etc.), ESLER (Early Christian World, 2000), the writings on honour and shame mentality in the NT by MALINA, NEYREY and DESILVA, the Eerdmans series of socio-rhetorical commentaries (on the PE: WITHERINGTON, 2006), as well as several commentaries, monographs and essays on the PE (QUINN, R. COLLINS, MALHERBE, FIORE, OBERLINNER, VERNER, KIDD, MERZ) highlighting GrecoRoman influences. 5 While I use of the expertise of classical scholars I do not wish to intrude in this vast field of scholarship. The writings of each classical author mentioned in this volume have produced a distinct domain within classical studies, with its own internal debates. It is neither the competence, nor the wish of the biblical scholar to decide over such debates. However, I have attempted to interpret ancient sources in a critical manner, based on the work of classical scholars. 6 Rightly, MALHERBE, “Virtus Feminarum”, 50–51, and in a personal communication (September 29, 2011): “it is unnecessary, indeed wrong, to posit some grand theory that everything Greek in the NT came through a filter of Judaism. In the case of Paul that is demonstrably false. Jewish material is of extraordinary significance, but as important examples of how authors who shared some major presuppositions with Paul appropriated traditions that Paul also appropriated, not because they were the vehicles by which the traditions came to Paul. Some of the traditions

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

xv

My presuppositions regarding the relationship between these New Testament texts and their cultural context come very close to the ecological or environmental approach of Abraham Malherbe.7 Malherbe argued that the Greco-Roman cultural-philosophical background of early Christianity should not be taken merely for a contingent backdrop, but we should allow this background “to become integral to the world of which the New Testament was part”.8 One should consider the “ecology of ancient Christianity and its world” and “think in terms of the environment in which early Christianity came into existence”.9 Malherbe has used “ecology” in the broadest sense of the word, as an approach that examines “the interrelationship of organisms and their environments”.10 This method allows the interpreter to take into account formative influences and to perceive the dynamic relationship between the texts (and their authors), their own environment and (what matters more here) their broader social and cultural environment. Both New Testament authors and popular philosophers inhabit the same physical and cultural space, as well as the same intellectual environment. They are exposed to similar influences, but also to specific conditions, which have to be interpreted in their own right. This approach has certain implications. (a) One does not need to establish a genealogical relationship between traditions or texts, or to identify the medium through which Greco-Roman influences reached NT authors (in particular one does not need to postulate the mediation of Hellenistic Judaism). (b) New Testament authors and their writings preserve their distinctiveness, just as any individual in a certain environment is more than the sum of the influences to which he is exposed.11 certainly did come to him via this route (see Rom 1), but others did not.” Pace TREBILCO, Early Christians, 354. 7 “Paul and the Popular Philosophers”, lecture delivered at Wheaton College on 4 April 2006, and personal communications by e-mail (September 29, 2011). See also his introductory considerations to his “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency” I, 376–377. 8 “Paul and the Popular Philosophers” (cf. n. 7 above). Even NT scholars who address the Greco-Roman background frequently treat it as a “backdrop”, “at most providing a setting for the action that takes place on the stage without actually being part of the action”. 9 “Paul and the Popular Philosophers” (cf. n. 7 above), emphases added. 10 “Paul and the Popular Philosophers”, quoting the Webster Dictionary. One could also cite the second meaning listed in the Merriam-Webster: “the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment”. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy proposes a similar definition: “ecology studies interactions between individual organisms and their environments, including interactions with both conspecifics and members of other species.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ecology/). 11 “I ought to look at the different traditions or texts, not so much as in causal relationship with each other, but as belonging to an environment by which they are all nourished while retaining their individuality. […] [T]he Pauline text should be seen as belonging to that environment as one

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xvi

Introduction

Malherbe has used the images of (intellectual) “landscape”, “space”, or “environment”. If we think in terms of ecology, we could perhaps add “oikos” (the very root of “ecology”), since, as it will be seen later on, in Greco-Roman thought oikos is frequently used as a metaphor for larger entities – for society (the polis) or the cosmos, itself perceived as a society of humans and gods. Remarkably, the core ecclesiological metaphor of the PE is precisely the oikos. If we consider the metaphorical use of oikos in antiquity, we may think of ancient authors, writers of New Testament texts, (popular) moral philosophers or playwrights as belonging to the same, widely understood social and cultural oikos, exposed to similar cultural influences, yet with quite distinct individual backgrounds and concerns. Beside the cultural investigation, the social study of this early Christian community, seen as part of a Greco-Roman society, may illuminate the mentalities expressed in the PE. For this purpose, I also examine some models and analyses worked out by social historians and, to a lesser extent, the paradigms advanced by social scientists that help the comprehension of Hellenistic and Roman societies. Exploring the roots and the development of the patterns that mark GrecoRoman thought through the lens of ideology critique, I wish to show how deeply the author of the PE is entrenched in a conservative manner of thinking that pervades Greek and Roman culture through centuries. Without minimising historical and regional differences, I focus on the continuity and pervasiveness of conformist mentalities with regard to the division of spaces and roles and to social expectations of honourable behaviour. Thus, I argue that although social practice and legal regulations do change, ideological approaches to these issues are remarkably persistent. This is why the temporal and geographic frame of the examined sources extends beyond the period and area in which the PE were written. I discuss firstly and in more detail Greek sources, then Roman authors, mostly in a chronological order, attempting to draw attention to the persistence of topoi and to the convergences between Greek and Roman authors, but at times I also point to the differences between Greek and Roman mentalities and practice. among other options with its own integrity as the philosophers have theirs. Perhaps this simply means that the relationship is analogical rather than genealogical […]. But, I am reaching for something beyond analogy in introducing the notion of ecology, which allows a more dynamic reality. […] I believe that we are part of all that we have met, yet I do not believe that we can be explained or described by identifying what we have been exposed to and adding them up. We are more complex, and so is the enterprise in which we are engaged.” (e-mail, September 29, 2011). On the fallacy of positing a Jewish mediation, and the need to acknowledge that both Christian and Jewish authors lived in the same environment and were exposed to the same influences see n. 6 above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

xvii

Some of the classical and Hellenistic authors cited in this volume may be remote in time. However, the issues they raised continued to be relevant and their views continued to be influential much later. Drama continued to be performed in the Greek-speaking world well into the imperial period, contributing to the survival of the views expressed by classical playwrights. Authors were cited, revived and reinterpreted, often by Roman writers, some were even translated, or pseudonymous works (partly) reiterating their views were produced. To take only a few examples, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus was used by the author of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica12 and was translated by Cicero. Columella drew upon this translation. Plutarch knew a great deal of Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, often citing their views. He evoked the conditions of Spartan society, reiterating judgements made by Xenophon and Aristotle, or referring to ancient legislators, in order to make a point for his own time. He quoted Sophocles and Euripides and criticised Aristophanes.

Obviously most of the ancient authors whose works have survived belonged to the elite. This may cast doubt on their relevance for understanding early Christian writings. Surely, the views of those Christians who came from the lowest echelons of society cannot be deduced from these works. However, I argue that the PE do not express the views and values of the destitute, but those of the elite, in a socially heterogeneous community. This implies the downward diffusion or replication of the values and ideas formulated by the elites, a well-known phenomenon in antiquity.13 This is one of the implications of perceiving (Christian) authors as individuals who belong to a larger cultural environment. Beside literary sources I use epigraphic records that may (in spite of their standardised language and values) reflect to some point social realities, but even here I am more interested in mentalities. When available and relevant, documentary papyri are also used, especially to highlight the contrast between reality and ideology. The Pastorals, largely influenced by their time, have had a remarkable effective history that in various ways extends up to present day. Although the implications of such a contextual approach of roles and ministries for systematic theology, canon law and church practice (including issues like ordained ministry, apostolic succession and women’s exclusion from ministry) are evident, these issues will not be addressed here. Even so, the con12 This is true mainly for the first book. The second and third book have a different author. See p. 80, n. 53. 13 For examples: LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL, “Univira”, 19–32 (the ideal of univira); BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 41, 45–46, 48–49 (adorning habits).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xviii

Introduction

temporary relevance of the discussion will be obvious. Further, it is not my intention to confront the PE with modern expectations of social sensitivity and equality, but to situate the texts in their cultural and social context, showing the extent to which they are the product of their time and express conservative views on various matters, even for their time.

Structure In the first chapter I state the premises of this investigation. I do not always enter into the details of the scholarly debate concerning the PE, as some of the matters like the question of authorship and addressees are extensively discussed in commentaries to which I refer, whereas others are addressed in various chapters. I read the PE as pseudepigraphical writings composed by the same author probably at the turn of the century, very likely in Western Asia Minor, intimately connected by certain themes, concerns and linguistic particularities. The PE express a conservative position on social ethics and promote adherence to the values shared with the society in which the author lives. They are prescriptive writings that attempt to shape reality, to establish and maintain an ecclesial, social and gender hierarchy and have thereby an ideological character. The PE presuppose a socially heterogeneous ekklƝsia probably organised as a religious association that replicates the polis, including middling groups that embrace elite values and mentalities. The second chapter deals with the ecclesiology of the PE and its implications, exploring the meaning and significance of its core metaphor, the oi=koj qeou/ (1 Tim 3,15). The PE ground their view of the church in the sociocultural concept of the oikos and in the rules of household management. The concept has an essential contribution to the redefinition of the church at the turn of the century. It implies a major ecclesiological shift and has decisive consequences for the definition of roles and ministries in the community. The structure and ideology of the oikos explains in part the restrictive regulations of gender roles and the gender-related exclusion from offices, as well as the emphasis on the subordination of slaves. Most authors who have addressed the oikos-ecclesiology have focused, not without reason, on the understanding of the church as a (patriarchal) household. I wish to go one step further and to argue that when the PE use the concept of oikos for the church, i.e. for a religious community that stretches out beyond the household proper, they employ oikos metaphorically, in a certain cultural context. In ancient mentality, the oikos, the polis and the cosmos are deeply interrelated entities that may be used to define one another. The (political) community, the polis, is commonly described as

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

xix

an enlarged oikos, whereas the oikos is thought to be a sort of small polis. Religious associations that replicate through their structure the polis may also be referred to as oikoi. Even the cosmos may be described as an oikos or a polis joining gods and humans, belonging to the supreme deity. Therefore, when the ecclesial community made up of several households is described as the oi=koj qeou/, it is understood both as an extended oikos and a Christian polis governed by God, i.e. as public and sacred space. Moreover, the ekklƝsia, as household of God, gains in a sense a cosmic dimension that leads to the reification of the ecclesial and social regulations. In this volume I use oikos in two ways, for the household, as sociocultural unit, and for the ecclesiological metaphor that determines the institutional and hierarchic nature of the church (the oikos of God). Similarly, polis will be used in two ways, for the non-Christian polis or society as socio-political construct, as well as for the church as public space, incorporating several households and constituting thereby a broader entity than the one embracing members of a single household (the Christian polis).

This understanding of the ekklƝsia has a number of implications. First, it involves the ancient separation between private and public space, the division of gender roles in conformity with the laws of spaces and the assignment of certain vocations and ministries to one or the other sex. The patterns for roles and offices largely correspond to the dominant Greek and Roman distinction between private and public spaces and roles. The PE embrace conservative norms that restrict the public sphere to men, refer women to the oikos and refrain slaves’ claims to brother(sister)hood and equality. Secondly, men and women, Christians belonging to different social strata are expected to fulfil their social roles in an honourable manner, contributing to the respectability of the community. Thirdly, they have to be loyal members of their society. Chapter three focuses on the authority to teach in the ekklƝsia, a public space ruled by divine decrees. Teaching, a major task of the officials, is connected to legitimacy and authority. Teaching requires authority and implies the exercise of authority. In turn, the authority to teach is related to a number of factors among which orthodoxy and (male) gender rank prominently. This explains the exclusion of women and “heterodox” men from teaching. Most commentators argue that this exclusion had to do with the involvement of men and women in teaching heterodoxy. I question this assumption and I show that (a) “orthodoxy” and “heterodoxy” are concepts construed to single out those who adhere to the norms of behaviour established by the author and to discredit the opponents and (b) there is no sufficient proof that women taught heresy. I subsequently argue that the exclusion of women from public teaching has to do with ancient conventions according to which women may not hold authority, may not speak

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xx

Introduction

in public and have to be taught by men. These cultural conventions receive a theological backing from the narrative of creation and fall, used to relegate women to the domestic sphere and to persuade them to embrace motherhood instead of teaching. In this, the PE come close to ancient ideological / legal discussions on procreation and maternity. While the chapter focuses mainly on 1 Tim 2,11–15, which explicitly tackles the female condition, in the last part I show that although men as such are not prohibited to teach, it is far from obvious that just any man has the authority to teach. Chapter four draws attention to the ideological character of the PE, focusing on the presence of women in the public sphere. I argue that the norms connected to the division of spaces and roles have a prescriptiveideological character both in Greek and Roman authors and in the PE; therefore these texts do not describe reality in an adequate manner. To that purpose I explore the contrast between the ideology of exclusion and the reality involving participation in contemporary society and, by way of analogy, in the PE. I show that notwithstanding the deeply rooted distinction between the (male) public and the (female) private sphere, in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor and to a degree even in Rome (especially elite) women were present on the public stage as priestesses, benefactors and holders of certain magistracies, the latter being a practice typical for Asia Minor. This shows that the PE not only contradict a more genderinclusive practice in the lifetime of Paul, but are also more conservative compared to contemporary social and religious practices. They exclude women from the public religious stage, where their peers played a significant role, and attempt to limit the informal authority of better-off women. To this effect I show that the restrictions on women’s (display) of wealth and their cautioning against a self-indulgent lifestyle match those ancient sources that wish to limit the authority of well-off women. The regulations that bar women from public roles in the ekklƝsia, in fact, alter practices that go back to the lifetime of Paul. This restrictive attitude has to do mainly with conservative views on gender roles shared with contemporary traditionally-minded sources. It may also be connected with some more specific factors: a possible influence of the Jewish heritage, a probable Roman influence, and, foremost, the centrality of teaching among the roles of the officials in comparison with the mainly ritual function of priesthoods. The final conclusions emphasise that the oikos-ecclesiology of the PE and the ecclesial norms they promote may not be understood without the a deep knowledge of the cultural and social background of these writings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Introduction

xxi

Why a new monograph on the Pastoral Epistles? (1) The Greco-Roman backdrop of the PE was highlighted in a number of commentaries and essays. To my knowledge, however, there is no monograph attempting to give a picture of the wider social and cultural landscape that shaped the ecclesiology of the PE and their definition of social roles and ecclesial ministries. Applying the environmental approach proposed by Malherbe in his essays, I discuss the PE not as writings that have a contingent Greco-Roman background, but as expressions of an author and reflections of a community that belongs to this social and cultural environment. In the same time, these texts cannot be reduced to their cultural context, but address specific concerns in ways that are also dissimilar from other contemporary approaches. In this context, I propose a critical reading of the ancient sources, without taking at face value assertions made by the authors, as if they would objectively describe reality and without establishing unlikely connections with remote social phenomena. (2) As I regard the ekklƝsia as an intrinsic part of a Greco-Roman society, I incorporate the research on the social world of earliest Christianity, in particular on private associations, into the analysis of the PE. I explore both the ecclesiology of the PE and the structures of the community using insights from work done on private associations. To my knowledge, this enterprise has not yet been carried out. (3) The ecclesiology of the PE with its focus on the oikos has been addressed time and again. In virtually all discussions, oikos was taken in a strict sense, and the ekklƝsia was understood to replicate the ancient household. While this interpretation has much to commend it and to some extent I take it over, I reckon that this perspective explains only one aspect of this ecclesiology. As I focus on the metaphorical use of oikos in GrecoRoman antiquity, I show that the term denotes much broader entities: the religious association, the polis and the cosmos. These considerations bring me to regard the ekklƝsia as a public space that reproduces the oikos and the polis, just as private associations do. This justifies my discussion of roles and ministries based on the public-private divide and on honour and shame mentality. The theo-logical and cosmic dimension of the “household of God” illuminates the essentialist understanding of social and ecclesial roles. (4) Numerous scholars tend to identify with the perspective of the author and describe the struggle reflected in the PE as a justified combat against heterodox opponents and against illegitimate emancipatory tendencies. My focus on the ideological character of the PE highlights the function of polemics in creating opponents and in legitimising restrictive ecclesial regulations. It tracks down the process of creating “orthodoxy” and orthopraxy,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

xxii

Introduction

and it shows that the ecclesial norms are not necessary reactions to disruptive practices, but particular decisions motivated by a conservative worldview. The ideological features of the PE have been highlighted in a number of essays. To my knowledge, however, the critique of this ideological character, intrinsic to the discourse on orthodoxy, orthopraxy and social roles, was not yet used in a monograph on roles and ministries as the lens through which these texts are read.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

1. Placing the Discussion on Roles and Ministries

Any research starts from certain premises that largely shape the writing and the conclusions. Exploring the way in which the PE define roles and ministries in the ekklƝsia requires clarifications about the character of these writings (and/or the way they are read), the author and the addressees, as well as the social and cultural context they presuppose. This chapter will address some preliminary assumptions concerning the PE, their character and purpose and the community they reflect. One of the fundamental premises of this investigation is that the PE are writings that claim the authority of Paul for the norms of orthodoxy and orthopraxy that they create and wish to instate. As such, they belong together and share certain themes and concerns with other Pauline traditions. Yet, within the larger cluster of Pauline traditions they represent a distinct stream struggling to acquire legitimacy against other, competing interpretations of the Pauline legacy. At the turn of the century, in a time when the ekklƝsia attempts to find its place in society, Paul is reinterpreted in a specific way. The expectations concerning community members with different functions are re-defined so as to match the norms of respectable behaviour. This ideal can be described either by the older paradigm of good Christian citizenship (M. Dibelius, notwithstanding critiques of the notion) or by the more recent concept of “public transcript” (J. Scott).1 This brings us to the second major feature of the PE: their ideological thrust. While purportedly personal letters of Paul to his intimate collaborators, addressing issues and tasks of immediate concern, the PE are in fact programmatic writings composed with a specific goal. They are ideological in two ways. First, they do not describe reality, they do not give a glimpse into a spontaneous communication between Paul and his disciples, but they attempt to create a certain reality and to change existing practices. They are not descriptive, but prescriptive. Second, the PE attempt to impose and legitimise certain relations of power in the community, buttressing the exclusive authority of male, officially instated leaders, at the cost of various other ministries – charismatic or tending toward institutionalisation – carried out by men and women. They legitimise the existing social order by defending the interests 1

These concepts will be discussed later on (ĺ1.1.4, with bibliographic references).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

2

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

of slave-owners, at the cost of those of slaves and at the expense of the Pauline ideal of Christian brother(sister)hood. Although it may seem inappropriate to address this ideological character before discussing the relevant passages, it is essential to make this point from the outset, to make it clear that I read the PE against the grain. I do not uncritically identify with the position of the author, but I pay attention to the contrast between this prescriptive discourse and an underlying reality which this author obscures and attempts to change, by controlling certain manifestations and by vilifying the dissenters. The third premise concerns the addressees. Defining roles and ministries, the author has in mind a specific community with a certain social constituency and a particular institutional shape. This ekklƝsia seems to be socially heterogeneous, relatively well organised, and may be approximated to a private association. This model also illuminates the ecclesiology of the PE. An association reproduces the oikos through the bonds of fictive kinship and replicates the polis through its structures and offices. In an analogous manner, the ekklƝsia is an oikos belonging to God and a structured community that mirrors the society in which it exists.

1.1 Placing the Pastoral Epistles 1.1.1 Writings that claim the authority of Paul The PE are pseudonymous writings2 that build on the fiction of author, addressees and possibly location, written by the end of the first century or early in the second century.3 The pseudepigraphical character of the PE, 2 The arguments for pseudonymity will not be detailed here. See DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 22–60; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 23–39, 41–46; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, XXXIII–XXXIX, XLII–XLVI; DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, passim; WOLTER, Past, 11–25; YOUNG, Theology, 2, 22–23; THIESSEN, Christen, 248, 339–341; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 3–9; WEISER, 2 Tim, 53–54, 56–59, 63; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 72–86; TREBILCO, Early Christians, 202–205; FIORE, PE, 15–20; SCHRÖTER, “Kirche”, 77–104; QUINN, Tit, 117–121; QUINN, WACKER, 1–2 Tim, 19; MARGUERAT, “Paul après Paul”, 317– 337. The authenticity is defended by evangelical and traditionalist Catholic authors (FEE, 1 2 Tim Tit, xv–xxvi; LIEFELD, 1–2 Tim Tit, 24–28; MOUNCE, PE, xilvii–cxxix; WITHERINGTON, Letters, 23–68, 76–77; TOWNER, Letters, 3, 9–26, and SPICQ, Épîtres I; JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 91–99; ID., “First Timothy 1,1–20”, 19–39; MONTAGUE 1–2 Tim Tit, 16–24). To avoid the negative “pseudonymity”, H. MARSHALL introduces the notion of “allonymity” (PE, 83–84, 92). The challenge to the consensus about pseudonymity (HERZER, “Abschied”, 1267–1282; DONFRIED, “Rethinking”, 153–182) may not obscure the fact that authenticity is defended because of a certain understanding of inspiration and canonicity, that takes the debate to an ideological level (ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 24–25). 3 Those who take the PE to be pseudonymous mostly date them between 80–100, more often to the end of the century (BROX, ROLOFF, OBERLINNER, WEISER, R. COLLINS, MERZ, TREBILCO). WOLTER proposes a broader interval (90–140), whereas QUINN and SCHRÖTER date them closer to 80. STANDHARTINGER argues for the mid-second century, largely based on her reading of euvse,beia as

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

3

more generally the phenomenon of New Testament pseudepigraphy under its various forms,4 is a debated matter. Even more disputed is the possibility that the PE are the result of deliberate deception. This option is commonly rejected on theological and/or moral grounds.5 On the other hand, some of those who admit pseudepigraphy explain the endeavour of writing fictitious letters with the need to preserve apostolic teaching and continuity in tradition through its reinterpretation in new contexts, marked by inner debates.6 When it comes to the PE, some scholars highlight the author(s)’s esteem for Paul and his (their) dependence on the Pauline tradition.7 Others argue that the PE are examples of school pseudepigraphy, comparable to that practiced by members of philosophical schools,8 exercising the style of the master and developing his ideas, without the intention to deceive, relying on a consensus between author and readers.9 The author would aim thereby to consolidate element of the imperial propaganda for stability, fully developed under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (“Eusebeia”, 80). But the term cannot be used to date the PE, unless one argues that it can be understood only from second century imperial ideology, discounting its similar, political use from Augustus onward. Some connect the PE to a Pauline school (SCHNELLE, Einleitung, 328; POKORNÝ, HECKEL, Einleitung, 618; MERKEL, Past, 9–10; HERZER, “Fiktion”, 522–523) or to the alleged recipients of the epistles, esp. Timothy (FRENSCHKOWSKI, “Pseudepigraphie”, 239–272, esp. 253–269). 2 Tim is sometimes considered to be authentic by authors who do not take 1 Tim and Tit to be genuine (e.g. PRIOR, Paul). 4 I will not discuss here the different forms and aims of pseudepigraphy. For that purpose see esp. SPEYER, Literarische Fälschung (1971); BAUM, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung (2001). 5 MEADE, Pseudonymity, 2; BAUM, Pseudepigraphie, 81–91. PORTER addresses the implications of pseudepigraphy and deception for the canon and concludes that despite differences from the undisputed Paulines, the PE should be accepted as authentic because of the consequences of admitting pseudepigraphy (“Pauline Authorship”, 105–123). BAUM notes that pseudepigraphic NT-writings were in all probability composed with the intention to deceive and in early Christianity such works were regarded forgeries (80, 93, 131). An exception to this rule was the case when the content could be linked to the author whose name this writing bore, or the apostle authorised the real author to write a letter (93). Therefore, Baum argues, if one does not accept that a pia fraus could legitimise such endeavour, one is left with two options: that of a canon within the canon (which he finds untenable), or the rejection of the canonical character of these forged writings (191, cf. 194–196). 6 SCHNELLE, Einleitung, 327–329 (moreover, personalities that would have held “gesammtkirchliche Autorität” were allegedly lacking); POKORNÝ, “Das theologische Problem”, 122 (although admitting that the personalia were forged, a matter that was not recognised or was intentionally overlooked by the Church in the process of canonisation, 126); POKORNÝ, HECKEL, Einleitung, 621–622; KLAUCK, Ancient Letters, 404. 7 THRAEDE, “Pseudepigraphie” II, 707. See the critical discussion in DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 9–13; FRENSCHKOWSKI, “Pseudepigraphie”, 240–243; HERZER, “Fiktion”, 490–497. 8 On pseudepigraphy practiced within philosophical and medical schools: SPEYER, Fälschung, 34–35; BAUM, Pseudepigraphie, 51–63 (including apostolic schools); HERZER, “Fiktion”, 521– 523. Yet, forgeries may also imitate the style of philosophers: SPEYER, Fälschung, 82. 9 HERZER, “Fiktion”, 521–523, 533–536, on 1 Timothy. He works with the distinction between fiction and forgery (not all fiction is forgery, p. 531; see SPEYER, Fälschung, 7, 22–24). Tit and 2 Tim precede 1 Tim (which he dates to the late first half of the second century) and are independent writings, not epistles belonging to a corpus, and their Pauline authorship does not seem to be

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

4

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

the community and to demarcate his position from that of “heterodox” opponents.10 This explanation of pseudepigraphy is not convincing. A transparent pseudepigraphy would ultimately be purposeless, as it would rely on nothing more than the authority of the author.11 But this did obviously not suffice to enforce the norms and restrictions advanced in the PE, if (any form of) pseudepigraphy was deemed to be necessary. The backdrop of the Pastorals, more specifically the debate over the interpretation of (Pauline) doctrine and Christian lifestyle illuminates the reasons for which the author resorts to pseudepigraphy. This confrontation has been defined as a clash between orthodoxy and heresy (though it is more accurate to speak of different interpretations of Paul).12 The author wished to impose his own view of “orthodoxy” and appropriate lifestyle. Precisely this enterprise explains the author’s need for a strong authority to support his instructions. Merz has convincingly shown how the PE, through an important number of intertextual references to genuine Pauline texts create a fictitious “Selbstauslegung” in which Pauline views and statements are taken over and reinterpreted, in order to defend one of the competing Pauline traditions.13 Resorting to Paul implies, therefore, the claim to an ultimate, unquestionable authority – that of the eminent and paradigmatic apostle. This “orthodoxy” is thereby linked to apostolic times and apostolic characters: apostolicity and orthodoxy are equated.14 This perception implicitly reflects the pervasive opinion that value and normativity come with ancientness.15 In order to achieve this goal, the author must convince his readers that the epistles indeed express the will of Paul. To put it differently, the PE are not open pseudepigraphy, they are not based on a consensus shared by author and readers, but they are forged letters attributed to Paul in view of his apostolic authority; moreover, they are skilfully forged in order to avoid detection.16 The author wishes to convince contemporary readers (the actual impossible. To be sure, were they pseudepigraphical, one should regard them as forgeries, because of their literary features (534). 10 HERZER, “Fiktion”, 533. 11 Rightly METZGER, “Forgeries”, 16: “if nobody was taken in by the device of pseudepigraphy, it is difficult to see why it was adopted at all.” 12 DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 17, 43–54 (as general context of Christian pseudepigraphy), 59, 66, 115–117, passim. Yet, he recognises that such dichotomy should be mitigated by Bauer’s criticism of the very concept of orthodoxy (p. 44, n. 150), an issue to which I shall return (ĺ3.2). 13 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 221–243. 14 DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 61, 63, 66; FRENSCHKOWSKI, “Pseudepigraphie”, 249. 15 BROX, Falsche Verfasserangaben, 105–106; FRENSCHKOWSKI, “Pseudepigraphie”, 250–253. 16 DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 22, 24, 55, 128, 151, passim; FRENSCHKOWSKI, “Pseudepigraphie”, 251, 262; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 221, 224, 383–384; J. MARSHALL, “Crete”, 781–803; TSUJI, “Korrespondenz”, 253–272. On the normativity of the apostolic times, see also POKORNÝ, “Theologische Problem”, 130. I use here SPEYER’s definition of forgery: “Eine Fälschung liegt

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

5

addressees) that they overhear the personal communication of the Apostle to his trusted collaborators. This gives singular weight to his statements. The implied levels of communication are at least threefold. On surface, Paul writes to his trusted disciples instructing them on various matters. But his decrees are supposed to be forwarded to the officials and to be overheard by specific communities in the lifetime of Paul. In reality an unknown, thirdgeneration author speaks to the officials and to the community of his own time, concealing his identity and conveying the impression that the readers receive Paul’s hitherto unknown instructions. This means that, in the end, the PE are not letters at all,17 but programmatic writings in which the author imposes his view of the church by appealing to the authority of Paul. Timothy and Titus are chosen as recipients of the letters for their wellknown prominence in the Pauline mission and for their portrayal in the undisputed epistles as authorised and autonomous delegates and representatives of the apostle, acting successfully in various crises and conflicts in the absence of Paul.18 This role turns Timothy and Titus into ideal mediators of Paul’s authority and the legitimators of the instated ecclesial order, as they stand for continuity in leadership,19 and implicitly, in tradition. 1.1.2 A Pastoral corpus The similarity in views and language, just as the continuity in themes suggest that these epistles are most likely written by the same author and are intimately connected. For that reason I shall treat them as a corpus,20

dann vor, wenn der wirkliche Verfasser mit dem angegebenen nicht übereinstimmt und die Maske als Mittel gewählt wurde, um Absichten durchsetzen, die außerhalb der Literatur, das heißt der Kunst, lagen. Nur wo Täuschungsabsicht, also dolus malus, vorliegt, wird der Tatbestand der Fälschung erfüllt” (Fälschung, 13). See also METZGER, “Forgeries”, 4; BAUM, Pseudepigraphie, 11. This is not true religious pseudepigraphy, as there is no evidence for writing under inspiration (see SPEYER, 35–37). Pace SCHNELLE, Einleitung, 328–329; HERZER, “Fiktion”, 522–523, 534– 535. BAUM shows that insofar Paul did not authorise the writing of the PE, according to ancient standards, these were forgeries (Pseudepigraphie, 93). On the personalia as instruments of pseudepigraphy: BROX, “Zu den persönlichen Notizen der Pastoralbriefen”, 272–294. 17 J. MARSHALL, “Crete”, 783–784. 18 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 21–23; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, XXVII–XXXIII; FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 175–207 (177, adding that their typification supports the authority of a “revised and updated” Paul). On the role of the two in the Pauline mission, and their effective history: VON LIPS, Timotheus. Titus’ identification with Timothy (FELLOWS, “Was Titus Timothy?”, 33–58) is not convincing. 19 OBERLINNER, “Gemeindeordnung”, 301–302; DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 63. 20 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 43–45; SCHRÖTER, “Kirche”, 80–81; FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 180; LINDEMANN, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, 134; J. MARSHALL, “Crete”, 784.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

6

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

notwithstanding criticism of this approach,21 without denying that each has an individual profile.22 The three letters may function as multiple witnesses for this specific brand of “Pauline” tradition,23 possibly aiming at creating a sense of universal validity for their interpretation of Paul and for the instructions and regulations they articulate.24 Thus the letters appear as multiple, apparently independent witnesses to Paul’s concern with sound doctrine.25 As a corpus, these writings serve the re-edition and conclusion of the Corpus Paulinum.26 I am inclined to read the epistles in the order in which they are listed in the Muratorian fragment (Tit – 1 Tim – 2 Tim).27 Some thematic and formal28 consideration may support this reading. Thematically Titus and 1 Timothy are quite similar, as they both address the need to preserve sound doctrine against ill-intended and dangerous opponents, as well as related themes like church structures, ministries and regulations regarding the life of the community and the behaviour of various groups. The task of defending the truth belongs to appointed officials holding the authority handed down by Paul, via his prominent disciples. These authorised officials hold exclusive authority; 21 The idea of a corpus was criticised mostly by scholars defending the authenticity of the letters and implicitly their individual historical setting (JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 63–64, 98–99; TOWNER, Letters, 88–89 passim; more cautiously DONFRIED, “Rethinking”, 155–156). See also HERZER, “Fiktion”, 514–515, passim (overemphasising differences between the three writings and ignoring common topics and language). Yet, against such objections see HÄFNER, “Past”, 456–457. 22 “Individual profile” (SCHAEFER, “Judentum”, 57, 60) describes the character of these writings in a more appropriate way than “independent letters” (pace TOWNER, Letters, 3). 23 Cf. Deut 19,15. ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 45 (following Trummer) and PUSKAS, Letters, 183 (taking up Quinn’s comparison with the seven letters of Rev; in his “Last Volume of Luke–Acts”), 193. The difficulty in explaining the existence of three epistles on the hypothesis of pseudonymity is taken by some (commonly evangelical) authors as a proof for their authenticity (FEE, Listening, 147, n. 2), but this can hardly be a proof. 24 OBERLINNER, Tit, 22 (“die weite Verbreitung der von ‘Paulus’ organisierten und autorisierten Gemeindeordnung”); TSUJI, “Korrespondenz“, 270–272. Tsuji suggests that 1 Tim is meant to be read first, followed by Tit and 2 Tim. Tit would expand the scope of the views and regulations formulated by 1 Tim geographically, 2 Tim temporally. In his view this sequence does not necessarily mean that 1 Tim would have been written before Tit. That (forged) letters intend to widen the scope and validity of the argument to be made, through the added force of a corpus, may be convincingly maintained. But this case can be made only when these letters are indeed written after 1 Tim, precisely with this purpose. 25 TSUJI, “2 Tim”, 1–11. 26 TRUMMER, “Corpus Paulinum”, 122–145 133, 142; TSUJI, “Korrespondenz”, 256, 266–267. The relationship between these writings may by addressed in terms of rhetorical strategy, as well: Tit and 1 Tim are deliberative, the second expanding on the first; 2 Tim is a piece of epideictic rhetoric, a peroratio to the corpus, extolling values and virtues expressed in all three writings (PUSKAS, Letters, 182–183). 27 Muratorian Fragment 60–61 (ed. HAHNEMAN, 7). 28 E.g. the long, programmatic prescript of Tit. SCHAEFER, “Judentum”, 76–79 remarks the programmatic character of the whole ch. 1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

7

they warrant the claimed continuity in tradition and through their preaching of the true doctrine, they mediate salvation.29 Social issues, such as slaves’ subordination to their masters and the submission of Christians to civil authorities also connect the two writings. 1 Timothy discusses ministries, qualifications for offices, as well as some specific issues concerning e.g. the role of women, in a more extensive and systematic manner than Titus. This may suggest that 1 Timothy takes up again and develops in more detail and with more force matters discussed earlier in Titus. For this reason 1 Timothy seems later than Titus.30 One should not postulate, however, a more primitive organisation of the church in Crete, allegedly reflected in Tit 1,5,31 just because ministries are not discussed in as much detail. The fictitious character of the letter does not allow for any certain conclusion about the situation of the church, all the more so as Crete is most probably a fabricated setting.32 A possible scenario would be a sequential writing motivated by the need to enforce the argument the author makes in his first letter: opponents teaching a different doctrine should be reduced to silence; sound doctrine and appropriate behaviour should be preserved through the authority of church leaders whose institution goes back to Paul. To this end the author may have chosen initially in Titus an important, yet somewhat less known disciple of Paul and would have placed him in Crete, a setting that could be connected to some extent to Paul (cf. Acts 27), yet would have been elusive enough to preclude rejection.33 (In earliest Christianity Crete is not known as the location of Pauline or other mission; therefore it does not stand out as a place of great consequence, at least not before Titus is written. Yet, Crete was decidedly an important site in 29 DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 127–128, 142–143, 151; compare OBERLINNER, “«Paulus»”, 173, 176–177. 30 PUSKAS, Letters, 183; KLAUCK, Ancient Letters, 324–325, 327 (noting the long prescript of Tit). WOLTER opts for the sequence 1 Tim–Tit–2 Tim, due to the increasing detachment of the apostle from the community (Past, 21). 31 H. MARSHALL, PE, 146, 148; TOWNER, Letters, 64 (in Crete “a nascent Church was adrift in a rude social and ethical environment”), 680; MONTAGUE, 1–2 Tim, Tit, 24, 217, 220, 228 (the “raw condition of the Church in Crete, made up largely of new converts who have come from a life infected by the loose morals of the surrounding culture”). 32 Nothing is known about the beginnings of the church in Crete. For those who read the PE as authentic, the prominence of the Ephesian church in 1 Tim may appear to buttress the view that the Cretan church structures were less developed. But if the PE are written at the end of the first century or early in the second century, several decades may have elapsed since the settling of the church in Crete, a process of which we know nothing. This questions the assumptions about a primitive ecclesial setting. 33 Successful forgery demands both the inclusion of elements that create verisimilitude, connecting the fictitious letter to the alleged author, and the avoidance of excessively precise details that would allow the disclosure of forgery. DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 60–61. Compare SPEYER, Fälschung, 82, from a modern perspective: “Je genauer die Angaben sind, desto falscher sind die.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

8

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

antiquity.34) The pseudepigraphical endeavour may have been successful, but the effect was less powerful than desired, which may have encouraged the author to make a stronger point, having this time Paul writing to Timothy, probably Paul’s most known disciple, and locating him in the centre of the Pauline mission. Nevertheless no certain conclusion can be drawn as to the order of 1 Tim and Tit, since various other scenarios are possible. The geographic location of the writing and of the implied readers may not be determined with certainty. As the PE elaborate on Pauline traditions and confront alternative readings of Paul, they must belong to an area where Paulinism, under various forms, is markedly present, probably in a region of earlier Pauline mission. The mentality expectedly shared by sender and recipients is embedded in Hellenistic (popular) culture and philosophy and reflects values and morality of this cultural setting. These cultural affinities imply that the author and the addressees belong to a dominantly Hellenistic Christian community.35 Ephesus may have been chosen for its emblematic place in the Pauline mission. Yet, it is quite possible that the epistles are written in and for a community in Western Asia Minor, and Ephesus cannot be outrightly excluded.36 In principle, Greece could also be a candidate,37 but the similarities between Polyc. 2Phil and the PE seem to suggest that both reflect the same ecclesiastic and theological environment of Asia Minor.38 The geographical references draw upon a tradition on the Pauline mission in Asia, especially Ephesus, and on Paul’s travels to Macedonia and Achaia.39 34 It is probably a mere coincidence, but it is interesting that Plato had also chosen Crete as the setting of his utopian state, regulated in the Laws. 35 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 35, 41–42. 36 TREBILCO, Early Christians, 205 (possibly in or near Ephesus). On the setting: ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 42–43; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, XLVI, 10 (Ephesus, as emblematic for the whole area of Pauline mission); WEISER, 2 Tim, 59–61 (probably Ephesus); WOLTER, Past, 22; J. MARSHALL, “Crete”, 784. 37 WITETSCHEK, Enthüllungen, 240. TREBILCO notes that theoretically all three could have been written from Rome as well, but eventually defends the Ephesian origin (Early Christians, 205–209). 38 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 36. 39 1 Tim 1,3 possibly takes up 1 Cor 16,5–11 and Acts 19,21–22; 20,1–6. The differences disallow seeing in this journey the historical background of 1 Timothy. Timothy’s travel ahead of Paul to Macedonia and Corinth (Acts 19,22; 1 Cor 16,10), and their return together from Achaia via Macedonia (Acts 20,3–4) contradicts 1 Tim 1,3. On Paul’s travel to Macedonia see also 2 Cor 2,12–13; 7,5–6; 8,1.6 (all connected to Paul’s longing for, meeting Titus, and urging him to complete the collect, but never mentioning Timothy). 1 Thess 3,1–2.6 records an earlier travel of Timothy to Macedonia (Thessalonica), but this presupposes Timothy moving away from Paul (not the opposite), and it contradicts Acts 17,14–15 (Paul goes from Beroea to Athens ahead of Timothy and Silvanus). (For an attempt of harmonisation of 1 Thess and Acts: VON LIPS, Timotheus, 45–47). Tit 1,5 possibly alludes to Acts 27,7–13 (SCHRÖTER, “Kirche”, 86), but in the latter there is no reference to Titus accompanying Paul, let alone of his commissioning. Acts recounts a very brief transition, and has no recollection of Paul’s mission on Crete (in contrast to his activity in Malta, during the same travel to Rome). 2 Tim 1,16.18 presupposes a mission in Asia (Ephesus), while 3,11 may be a summary of (traditions preserved in) Acts 13,45.50; 14,1– 2.4–6.19. Rom 15,24–28 created the basis for a tradition about Paul’s Western mission (1 Clem 5,7), and his alleged release from Roman captivity (Eus., Hist. Eccl. 2.22.2; Murat. 38–39 is also

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

9

2 Timothy is connected to 1 Timothy and Titus by some essential themes like the focus on sound doctrine, on guarding the deposit (paraqh,kh), on legitimate teaching authority and on succession in ministry, as well as by the associated polemic against opponents who challenge this sound doctrine.40 The source of legitimate teaching authority is the idealised Paul, described as kh/rux, avpo,stoloj and dida,skaloj, appointed by Christ (1 Tim 2,7; 2 Tim 1,11). Sound doctrine (u`giainou,sh didaskali,a) is essential in all three epistles (1 Tim 1,10; Tit 1,9; 2,1; 2 Tim 4,3) and this concept appears nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. Paul’s paraqh,kh was preserved by Christ (2 Tim 1,12) and should also be guarded by Timothy (1 Tim 6,20; 2 Tim 4,14). One may discover here the roots of the later concept of apostolic succession, meant to secure continuity between the normative past marked by apostolic presence and later stages in the life of the church.41 The thesis of Pauline succession is defended in all three letters. Tit 1,5 elaborates the threestaged continuity that starts with Paul, passing through Timothy and reaching down to the local leaders (cf. also 2 Tim 2,2).42 1 Timothy focuses on the continuity between Paul and Timothy (1 Tim 1,2–3.18–19), while 2 Timothy develops the motif of succession to Timothy, embodied by the pistoi. a;nqrwpoi (2 Tim 2,2). 2 Timothy is therefore a (fictitious) theological testament of the apostle, embedded in epistolary form, that provides the continuity and the stability of the Pauline tradition and the ministry that carries

quoted, yet the latter text is uncertain, see HAHNEMAN, Muratorian Fragment, 6: “profectione pauli a(d)b urbe(s) ad spania”). Such hypothesis has no foundation in the PE themselves, unless one wants to postulate such release, in order to find a historical setting for these epistles. 40 Some identify distinct heresies fought in 1 Tim and Tit, and 2 Tim respectively. MURPHYO’CONNOR, “2 Timothy”, 403–418, just as commentators (e.g. JOHNSON) who take the three writings to be individual letters addressing individual situations. Yet, one can hardly reconstruct systematic, clearly distinguishable “heresies” in any of the three writings (ĺ3.2). Furthermore, in spite of differences in emphasis, the elements that connect all three are too significant to be overlooked. Even Murphy-O’Connor, though arguing for the distinct authorship of 2 Tim, acknowledges common elements in the depiction of false teachers (pp. 416–417). It would take too long to refute the objections raised by him, but the common elements listed here show how deeply these epistles are related. 41 As MERKT notes, “[d]as Theologumenon der apostolischen Sukzession ist ein Versuch, die Distanz zwischen Gegenwart und normativen Vergangenheit zu bewältigen. Es setzt damit zwangsläufig eine gewisse zeitliche Spanne voraus.” This explains why the concept does not appear in the apostolic time, and is not attested clearly up to 180 (“Problem”, 266). No doubt, neither the PE, nor 1 Clem attest this theologoumenon in a strict sense. Yet, the succession of sendings (Christ – apostle – Timothy and Titus – contemporary officials, noticed by MERKT, 267), points already to the span of time that the author attempts to overcome, legitimising the authority of contemporary leaders. Remarkably, the PE know only one apostle, Paul. 42 For the parallel construction of 1 Tim 6,12–14 and 2 Tim 4,6–8, depicting the perseverance in faith of Timothy and Paul, respectively: MOUNCE, PE, 351–352.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

10

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

it.43 Due to its testamentary character, 2 Timothy closes the Pastoral and, eventually, the Pauline corpus.44 The Pastorals become thereby the interpretative lenses through which Paul should be read.45 Obviously the Pastorals were not the only way of reading Paul in early Christianity, but once they are added to the Pauline corpus, the PE become Paul’s final words to readers of all times. 1.1.3 Connections with other Pauline traditions. Struggle for the Pauline legacy In earliest Christianity Paul was re-interpreted in many ways in different contexts.46 Certain relectures, differing in a number of ways from the image provided by the genuine epistles, share similar concerns. Such is the connection between the Pastorals and Acts. The author of the PE knew and used Pauline traditions comparable with those preserved in Acts.47 The image of Paul, of church structures and ministries is closer to Acts than to the undisputed Paulines. Some details of Paul’s biography coincide.48 The apostle’s concern for the future of the church, his apprehension about threatening false teachers, expressed in the Miletus-speech (Acts 20,17–35), 43 On the literary genre and the theological purpose of 2 Tim as farewell discourse and (fictitious) literary-theological testament or testamentary epistle, or at least containing such elements: BROX, Past, 262–263; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 25, 44–45; WEISER, 2 Tim, 38–40; WOLTER, Past, 222–241; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 7, 181–185; FIORE, PE, 8–9; SCHRÖTER, “Kirche”, 81, 88. Pace SMITH, Timothy’s Task, 3, 73–97, 147, passim (I have formulated my objections to his argument in EThL 85.1 [2009] 190–194). 44 WOLTER, Past, 240–241; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 239; PUSKAS, Letters, 193. 45 On “fictitious self(text)-references” and their role in determining, correcting and often restricting the meaning of Pauline texts: MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 232–239. 46 The matter is the subject of many explorations. See e.g. LINDEMANN, Paulus im ältesten Christentum (1979); SCHRÖTER, “Kirche” (2007); MARGUERAT, “Paul après Paul” (2008); ID. (ed.), Reception of Paulinism (2009). 47 Some think that the PE have known Acts, a possibility that has arguments for it (DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 4; BROX, Past, 57, 72–73; THIESSEN, Christen, 340). ROLOFF rejects this hypothesis (1 Tim, 40). He (1 Tim, 40), just as OBERLINNER (1 Tim, XLII), WEISER (2 Tim, 69–70) and SCHRÖTER (“Kirche”, 87) suggest the knowledge of traditions similar to those incorporated into Acts, due to temporal and geographic proximity. On the similarities between Acts and the PE see also BARRETT, Acts, 299–301; FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 177, 181. 48 Such is the interpretation of his Jewish past (1 Tim 1,15–16, closer to Acts 9 and 22, unlike Gal 1,13–16.23; Phil 3,6 or 1 Cor 15,8–10, where Paul never refers to it in terms of sin or blasphemia), the references to his persecutions in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra (2 Tim 3,11; cf. Acts 13,45.50; 14,1–2.4–6.19), the image of the suffering apostle, uttering a programmatic farewell speech (1 Tim 2; Acts 20). For his conversion: DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 28; BROX, Past, 110; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 37–39; SCHRAGE, 1 Kor IV, 60–65. Acts also shares with the PE the tradition of Timothy’s Jewish (Christian) origin (VON LIPS, Timotheus, 127).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

11

the assignment of trustworthy continuators, alternatively referred to as presbyteroi and episkopoi (Acts 20,17.28, cf. Tit 1,5.7 and probably also in 1 Tim 3,2 with 5,17), who carry on the teaching, appear in both.49 The specific use of some concepts, like pi,stij/pisto,j, di,kaioj/dikaiosu,nh seems to come closer to Acts, than to Paul.50 Both Acts and the Pastorals are permeated by the ideals and values of Hellenistic moral philosophy.51 Both reflect a positive attitude toward society.52 The position toward wealth, including the condemnation of greed in church officials, is also comparable.53 On the hypothesis that the PE use a tradition that comes close to that of Acts and admitting the importance assigned by Acts to Paul’s mission in Asia Minor, both the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles may stem from the same area.54 The manifold, often contradictory interpretations of Paul explain the competition between quite dissimilar readings of his views, like those preserved in the PE on the one hand, and the later Acts of Paul and Thecla on the other. This raises the question about the true interpretation of the Apostle’s teaching and its legitimate tradents. Within this debate the author of the Pastorals resorts to pseudepigraphy, to prove that his perspective is the only true interpretation of Paul. The Pastorals thereby reveal a struggle for the Pauline legacy,55 between groups adhering to competing interpretations of Paul, concerning Christian lifestyle, church organisation and legitimate ministries. These controversies are partly the result of the 49 On the similarities of the Miletus-speech and the setting and message of the PE, more specifically 2 Tim: WOLTER, Past, 223–225; PESCH, Apg, 206–207; ROLOFF, Apg, 302; cf. 303, 305 on ministries; BARRETT, Acts II, 964–965 (following WILSON, Luke, 117–118); SCHRÖTER, “Kirche”, 98–100; PERVO, Dating Acts, 112. 50 See also euvse,beia (four times in Acts, five in 2 Pet), swfrosu,nh (once in Acts, nowhere else in the NT), but these parallels may be due to the common Hellenistic background. 51 I do not embrace the view of Lucan authorship, proposed by WILSON, Luke (following earlier works by C.F.D. Moule and A. Strobel; QUINN, WACKER, 1 2 Tim, 20; QUINN, “Last Volume”, 62–75, more recently, though cautiously, WITHERINGTON, Letters, 57–60; DONFRIED, “Rethinking”, 165–168. For a criticism of the hypothesis: ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 34–35. 52 WILSON, Luke, 36–52. 53 WILSON, Luke, 49–50. 54 The provenance of Acts is not settled. G. SCHNEIDER (Apg I, 121), WEISER (Apg 1–12, 40) and PESCH (Apg 1–12, 8) do not seem to decide about its origin. ROLOFF mentions Western Asia Minor or Greece, but seems to prefer Italy (Apg, 4–5). PERVO is open to the possibility of an Ephesian origin (Profit, 9). THIESSEN pleads for the Ephesian provenance of Acts and the PE (Christen, 234– 236, 250–253), see also WITETSCHEK, Enthüllungen, 257–262 (Acts) and 240 (the PE, in Greece or Asia Minor). MARGUERAT locates Acts in the Eastern Mediterranean area (Actes des apôtres, 20). 55 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 231–242, passim, cf. EAD., “Fictitious Self-Exposition”, 113–132; see also THIESSEN, Christen, 342–343, about the competition of various groups and theologies, under the heading “Streit um das Erbe”; FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 180, 185–186 (the vilification of the opponents and their definition as the evil Other), 190.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

12

Placing the discussion on roles and ministries

potential for contradictions that lies within the Pauline writings.56 For this reason concepts like “heresy” or “false teaching” are of little help in assessing the position of the opponents. The PE reflect one possible interpretation of Paul, among several other early interpretations competing for legitimacy. The PE define a well-ordered, increasingly institutionalised church, whose members are to be integrated in society and earn the respect of outsiders.57 For this purpose the author promotes traditional authority over charismatic ministries, based on the fictitious charismatic authority of “Paul”.58 Quest for order and cohesion in the church becomes a major concern. Personal choice in the observance of the norms is rejected and replaced with strict adherence to doctrinal and community rules. Marriage is defended against ascetic tendencies as the true observance of the teaching of Paul. Eschatological expectations leave room to concern with a respectable lifestyle. 1.1.4 Good Christian citizenship, or public versus hidden transcript Beyond settling the internal competition for the Pauline heritage, the PE construe particular social ethics. By encouraging Christians to live an honourable life in this world they come close to moral-philosophical currents that promote orderly social behaviour and traditional values. In this they share many of the ethical and social views of Neopythagoreanism and (late) Stoicism, against schools that promote a countercultural lifestyle, rejecting wealth, public service and marriage, like the (radical) Cynics.59 The author 56

It is not my goal to analyse the complexity of Pauline theology and ecclesiology, but it is obvious that the authentic epistles allow the justification of contrasting interpretations of various theological, ethical, ecclesial and social issues. Diverse eschatologies could be derived from Paul (H. MARSHALL, PE, 753–754). A good case could be made for asceticism and for marriage (FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 193–196, 198), for questioning traditional gender roles and for gender hierarchy. In addition, as FINLAN notes, “Paul can be used in ways that will allow for diversity of understanding or in ways that suppress problems and prevent discussion.” (Apostle Paul, 198). 57 FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 177–180, 186–193, 196–201. 58 PIETERSEN applies Max Weber’s distinction between legal, traditional and charismatic authority to the PE. Legal authority relies on the conviction that the rules are lawful and those holding authority have the right of to issue rules. Traditional authority is based on the belief about the holiness of tradition and the legitimacy of those who stand for this tradition. Charismatic authority is connected to the exceptional holiness and commitment of an individual and to the patterns of behaviour put forward by this individual (Polemic, 39–40, cf. WEBER, Economy, 215). On the use of a legendary Paul and of his charismatic authority to justify institutionalisation and church order: FATUM, “Christ Domesticated”, 176–179, 181–183, passim. 59 Attacks against Cynics and Epicureans show that a countercultural lifestyle was commonly found to be unacceptable. Lucian censures Cynics for rejecting social responsibilities (keeping a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Placing the Pastoral Epistles

13

endorses a peaceful coexistence with non-Christian fellow-citizens and respect for public authorities. The values and norms endorsed by the PE are those promoted by authors belonging to the elites. Similarities in language and mentality have long since been recognised.60 Virtues like piety (euvse,beia), dignity and sobriety (semno,thj), prudence and self-restraint (swfrosu,nh), decorum (kosmio,thj) and respect for the feelings and honour of others (aivdw,j) are well-known from a broad variety of sources, such as drama, moral-philosophical writings, and honorary inscriptions.61 The qualifications for offices also reflect elite values. The official needs to be irreproachable (avnepi,lhmptoj( avne,gklhtoj)( kind and loving of good (praustasqai … i[na mh. w=sin a;karpoi. Yet, in the latter text the object(ive) of learning is engagement in good deeds, therefore manqa,nw does not stand for learning certain doctrines, and has nothing to do with learning. 18 LSJ, s.v. flu,aroj, and the detailed analysis in BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 50–66. 19 LSJ, s.v. peri,ergoj. The word may also refer to magic, as in Acts 19,19, a meaning which might be also implied by the text, as suggested by WAGENER, Ordnung, 209–210, based on parallels from TestJos 6,2 (Potiphar’s wife), TestRub 3,4 (women’s jewellery and magical practices). This pejorative meaning is not unconceivable, yet less compelling in my view.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

183

Whatever sense one would attribute to the two latter terms – that of gossiping and meddling in affairs that should not concern them, or of talkers of silly matters and curious (if one takes them to be predicative, just like avrgai, is read here) – they are hardly adequate for defining the manner of learning, to which they clearly refer (as they are all qualifications of manqa,nw). (Only superstition would have something to do with learning, but would not explain the pairing.) Therefore avrgai. manqa,nousin seems to refer to the widows’ idleness,20 rather than to the manner of their learning. This seems to be supported by the context (women gadding about from house to house) and by the association with meddlesomeness and gossip-terminology.21 Idleness is otherwise frequently connected in ancient sources with disdained categories like women or the masses and at times specifically linked with meddlesomeness.22

Flu,aroi Examining the various meanings of flu,aroj in ancient sources, as background for the gossip-terminology in the PE, Bjelland Kartzow shows that the semantic field of the flu,ar-root includes: telling foolish or nonsensical stories, frivolous chatter, superficial speech (in contrast to the talk of educated men and to philosophical discourse), talkativeness and the spread of rumours, gossip associated with inquisitiveness (fluari,a and periergi,a), 20 Plato, unconvential about female education and physical-military training, connects such a pursuit with abstention from typical female activities. The Spartan order is unsatisfactory. Girls are involved in gymnastics, but women’s lifestyle is only partially active. They abandon woolwork (avrgou.j talasi,aj), and practice “a life that is not trivial at all nor useless, but arduous, advancing as it were halfway in the path of domestic tendency (qerapei,a) and management (tamiei,a) and childnurture (paidotrofi,a), nonetheless they take no share in military service”, and therefore will not be able to defend their children (Leg. 7; 806A). Here avrgo,j is used c. gen. rei, denoting abstention from an activity, yet it is interesting precisely because it refers to abstention from a typical female task. 21 On the semantic field of gossip-terms: BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 46–50, also 50–66 on the various meanings of flu,aroj. Idleness is associated with gossip in Eur., I.A. 1000: Achilles remarks that an army, free from domestic duties (avrgoj w'n tw/n oi;kowen) “loves evil gossip of malicious tongues” (le,scaj ponhra.j kai. kakosto,mouj). 22 Aristotle associates glamour and idleness: gaudy and shiny bees, like women of the same sort, are idle (ai` de. fanai, kai. lamprai,( w[sper gunai/kej avrgai,; Hist. anim. 627A 15). Numa’s successor, Tullus Hostiulius mocks Numa’s piety: religion makes men idle and effeminate (avrgopoio.n kai. gunaikw,dh; Plut., Num. 22,7). Solon, aware that the land could provide subsistence only to those who work it, and not to an “unoccupied and leisured multitude” (avrgo.n de. kai. scolasth.n o;clon), reassesses the worth of trades, inspects income sources and rebukes those who have no occupation (tou.j avrgou.j kola,zein; Plut., Sol. 22,3–4). A similar perspective on labour and idleness appears in Plut., Per. 12.5: Pericles stimulates the welfare of labourers who may not acquire wealth by participating in warfare, by involving them in building projects; he does not reward them for laziness and idleness (lamba,nein avrgo.n kai. scola,zonta). Per. 11,6 expresses contempt for “the mob of lazy and idle busybodies” (avrgou/ kai. scolh.n polupra,gmonoj o;clou), associating idleness with meddlesomeness.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

184

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

foolish talk of male opponents, speech of men lacking rhetorical training or comparable to that of women and emasculated men.23 The rhetorical use of the term is suggestive. Flu,aroj aims at discrediting the speech of the opponents.24 1 Tim 5,13 may envisage gossip, not only because flu,aroj can denote gossip, but because the author constructs a typical gossip scene: women gad about, leaving the domestic space, talk nonsense and are meddlesome.25 Yet, the broad semantic field of the flu,ar-root shows that it is almost impossible to decide what exactly young widows are accused of. Further, nothing concrete is said about the content of their speech.

Peri,ergoi Peri,ergoi is sometimes taken to refer to widows meddling in men’s affairs (in functions that pertain to the public sphere), instead of minding female duties in the household. For Wagener this specifically means the unauthorised appropriation of the teaching role.26 Her interpretation results from the connection she makes between peri,ergoi and the subsequent lale,w. The parallels from 2 Tim 3,7 and Tit 3,14 are certainly interesting. Yet, one cannot assert a predicative use for avrgai, that defines the manner of learning, rather than its outcome (“they learn with no result”), as Wagener does, but then dissociate flu,aroi kai. peri,ergoi (syntactically connected to avrgai,) from manqa,nw and relate them to the subsequent lale,w. It is not impossible that widows learn (from the opponents) and bear no fruits from such study, but this is difficult to sustain grammatically, due to the ouv mo,non… avlla. kai.… kai.… construction. This demands that the two latter attributes are also taken to describe manqa,nw and not lale,w, as suggested by Wagener. But in view of the meaning of flu,aroj and peri,ergoj, the sentence makes more sense if ei=nai is supplied. Otherwise it would be difficult to understand how being flu,aroj (talker of nonsensical matters) describes one’s manner of learning. As for peri,ergoj, given its connection 23 BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 51–60; for the association between fluari,a and periergi,a: Plut., De garr. 12, Mor. 6, 508C. On the foolish talk of opponents, compared to the assault by women: Dio Chrys., Or. 66.23.2–4. For the speech of men lacking rhetorical training: Dion. Hal., Comp. 25.193; id., 18.205, on the speech of women or emasculated men. 24 When it refers to men, it questions their manliness, and thus their authority and reliability. 25 BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 65–66. 26 WAGENER, Ordnung, 208–211. She takes periergi,a mainly as a synonym of polupragmosu,nh, denoting unauthorised meddling in someone else’s sphere of activity, in the context of the division of functions in the polis (referring to Pl., Resp. 4, 433A-D, quoted in Stob. 4.43f.; the precise reference to Stob. is 4.1.100, ed. Hense, vol. 4, p. 43). Plato indeed equates justice, the foundation of a city, with the requirement that all perform the duty most suitable to their nature (to. ta. au`tou/ pra,ttein), and avoid being busybodies (mh. polupragmonei/n). However the text uses polupragmonei/n, not periergei/n.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

185

to manqa,nw, even its predicative sense may suggest only that by learning, widows are meddlesome, but not that they are so by teaching. It may be of some interest that 2 Thess 3,11–12 wards off those who go about (peripate,w) disorderly (avta,ktwj) refusing to work and being busybodies (mhde.n evrgazome,nouj avlla. periergazome,nouj). For that reason “Paul” demands them to work in quietness (meta. h`suci,aj evrgazo,menoi) to earn their living. These may well be those who have given up everything and are fervently preparing for the parousia, treated by the author in a derogatory manner. But what matters here is the use of the expression. We have a group of Christians reproved for being meddlesome at the expense of carrying out their appropriate occupations. Here peripate,w may be, in connection with avta,ktwj, simply part of a turn of phrase (i.e. “they behave in a disorderly manner”),27 yet it may also refer to a person gadding about instead of working. The situation has emerged as a result of eschatological expectations. The author claims that these views lead to idleness and need to be corrected. In such a context, the use of the verbal form perierga,zomai is suggestive for intruding in affairs of no concern, instead of holding to one’s tasks (no matter what we would think of such people). The reproof of the widows may go in the same direction.

Flu,aroi kai. peri,ergoi The association between flu,aroj and peri,ergoj may refer, as Bjelland Kartzow shows, to three possibilities: (a) gossip and witchcraft; (b) speaking nonsense, or voicing opposing views or even alternative teachings and intruding in the male field, which is reprehensible either because it involves theological discussions or because teaching is performed by women; or (c) a scenario constructed by the author to discredit widows, by the use of the topos of women as gossipers and busybodies.28 Since the text says nothing concrete about the content of these widows’ speech (whereas in 4,3 opponents are accused of spreading concrete false teachings) and given the clear intention of the author to restrict as much as possible the role of widows, I am inclined towards the third option.29

Lale,in ta. mh. de,onta Wagener explains lale,in from Tit 2,1.15: in contrast to the false teachers rebuked in Tit 1,10–16, Titus is expected to speak what is proper to the sound teaching (su. de. la,lei a] pre,pei th|/ u`giainou,sh| didaskali,a|) and the exhortation to speak (tau/ta la,lei) is repeated in the conclusion of the station code and of its soteriological foundation (Tit 2,11–14). Therefore Wagener 27

TRILLING, 2 Thess, 150. BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 152–155. 29 BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 155: “The intention of 1 Tim 5:3–16 seems to be to limit the involvement of widows with the church and of the church with the widows, and a stereotype of gossip discourse is exploited as one of the rhetorical devices.” 28

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

186

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

also understands lalou/sai in 1 Tim 5,13 as a reference to teaching.30 This “speaking” of widows is qualified as inappropriate and when one reads ta. mh. de,onta in the light of Tit 1,11 (dida,skontej a] mh. dei/; the opponents teach what they should not), it seems that the charge against widows should be understood in a similar way.31 Thus, even when, because of grammatical and semantic difficulties one would not be convinced of the predicative use of avrgai,, flu,aroi and peri,ergoi in relation to manqa,nw and about the specific use of manqa,nw as learning heterodoxy from the opponents, v. 13c may be taken as an allusion to teaching what the author regards as heterodoxy. Yet, the decision is made difficult by the fact that in Tit the connection between lale,w and didaskali,a is explicit with respect to both Titus and the opponents, but it is at best implied for the widows in 1 Tim, due to a parallel outside the text itself. Therefore some caution is welcome; it is not impossible that widows were involved in (probably rather informal) teaching, yet this assumption is not verified in the text,32 and their spreading of heresy even less. That they speak what they should not may mean anything, from gossip about trivial questions, to empty talk on silly matters, to alternative teachings on theological issues or on ethical norms. As it will be argued throughout this chapter, the author regards the very act of teaching by women reprehensible, regardless of its content, because it goes against cultural conventions. An interesting parallel to 1 Tim 5,13 may be found in a passage from Theophrast: women should be educated just enough to manage the household, as further instruction would make them lazy, talkative and meddlesome (avrgote,raj te poiei/ […] kai. la,louj kai. perie,rgouj).33 This association of three stereotypical defaults of women in ancient literature (avrgo,j( la,loj( peri,ergoj) is also found in 1 Tim 5,13 in an almost identical manner. At first sight the passage would strengthen the view that 1 Tim 5,13 censures widows because of their learning (perhaps from the opponents?). 30

WAGENER, Ordnung, 206–207. See also ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 298; H. MARSHALL, PE, 603, arguing that lalou/sai ta. mh. de,onta is a conversation that promotes “false teaching in a less formal, but equally destructive manner”. The interpretation of lale,w as teaching might find some support in the fact that these are the sole occurrences of lale,w in the PE, cf. MG, 616. 32 Some commentators, even when open to the possibility of widows spreading false teaching, think that the text at best refers to this as a potential danger, not as a fact. ROLOFF claims that the widows (“Witweninstitution”) might have spread Gnostic heresy, but he doubts that the author has concrete indications for that (1 Tim, 298, n. 386). Roloff follows here SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA (“Apparently the author cannot prove that these young unmarried women taught anything heretical, but that their whole lifestyle corresponded to that taught by the opponent teachers”; Memory, 313). 33 avnagkaiota,th dV evpi. gunaikw/n h` tw/n gramma,twn dokei/ pai,deusij ei=nai kai. auvth. me,cri crhsi,mou pro.j oivkonomi,an\ to. dV evxakribou,menon evpi. ple,on avrgote,raj te poiei/ pro.j ta=lla kai. la,louj kai. perie,rgouj (Stob. 2.31.10–14, p. 207; ed. Wachsmuth). 31

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

187

However, while Theophrast deals here indeed, in a pejorative manner, with educated women, avrgo,j and peri,ergoj do not define the quality of their learning, but rather its negative outcome (learning makes them idle, talkative and meddlesome). Whether the author of 1 Timothy also refers to learned widows is an appealing, but eventually unverifiable supposition. As a matter of fact, it is not certain that widows are accused of learning nonsense from the opponents, i.e. heretical teachings. The similarity between the two texts rather suggests that 1 Tim most likely voices the same stereotypes about women as Theophrast – women are talkative, idle, gossipers and busybodies, all the more so when they do not limit themselves to domestic activities. (No doubt, the author would have agreed with Theophrast on the detrimental effect of learning in women.) The circumstance of widows’ unwelcome activities should also be considered. The reference to widows gadding about (periercome,nai ta.j oivki,aj) probably refers to pastoral house calls.34 While a teaching activity may be inferred (but cannot be proved with certainty), the house calls made by widows (although addressed in a derogatory manner) suggest that they had immediate, more or less formal contacts with a number of community members. Since the text is extremely ambiguous, it is difficult to tell whether or not they associated with the opponents or did actually teach during their visits. Therefore it is problematic to read 1 Tim 5,13 as an unquestionable proof for widows being heterodox teachers. It is certain that the author perceived their activities, their status and (moral) authority as a threat to the institutional order of the community, an order secured by the guardianship of the officials.35 If these widows chose to remain unmarried and to carry out a ministry involving house calls, this would have been enough reason for the leader to fear their exceeding independence and influence and wish to relegate them to their domestic role. The contempt for these widows’ activities fits perfectly into the low opinion on women’s public presence, regarded in contemporary literary sources as inference in matters of no concern for them.36 To be sure, even when widows are not accused of spreading heresy, but gossip-terminology is used rhetorically, together with the stereotype of 34

DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 75; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 297; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 239 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 247. Juvenal ridicules the meddlesome woman, rushing around the city (“totam pervolet urbem”), attending men’s meetings, talking directly and immodestly (“recta faciae”) to high-ranking men, acquainted with every public and private matter, from issues of foreign policy to familial concerns and love affairs, to calamities, spreading gossip wherever she goes (Sat. 6, 398–412). The text is also discussed by BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 89–93 (in her treatment of gossip and the PE). One may note the ironical association of women’s boldness and public speech with their lack of femininity, an age-old mockery. See GOLD, “The House I Live”, 374. 35 36

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

188

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

female idleness, the effects are no less damaging. As Bjelland Kartzow remarks, “a stereotype is a modelling device with enormous potential for harm. It is characterized by its ability to generate certainty in support of prejudice by appearing to be unambiguous and stable. In order to promote misogyny, stereotypes are used to construct and define what is typically and essentially feminine, repeatable and unchangeable.”37 Gossip and drivel come to be perceived as typically female forms of speech,38 and most probably this is how female speech is qualified in the PE as well.

Excursus. Women’s evil influence (on women) Younger widows in the community seem to be feared since they may exert an undesired influence during their house calls (1 Tim 5,13). This reflects in a sense an age old fear. Women are commonly depicted as corruptors (of other women), once they intrude into the household. In drama, the classical expression of this apprehension is the avowal of Hermione in Euripides’ Andromache: My undoing was bad women coming into the house. […] I listened to these Sirens’ words [these clever, knavish, deceitful chatterers] and became inflated with foolish thoughts. […] never […] ought sensible men who have wives to allow women to come to visit their wives in the house. They are the ones who teach evil (dida,skaloi kakw/n). […]. That is the source of the disease in the houses of men. In view of this guard well with bolt and bar the gates of your houses. For visits of women from outside are the cause of nothing that is sound but of much trouble.39 The assertion became quite influential, since Plutarch cited it much later in his Advice to Bride and Groom.40 Similarly, according to the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica a good wife “should allow none to enter without her husband’s knowledge, dreading above all things the gossip of gadding women, which tends to poison the soul.”41 Not only foreign women can have an evil influence on women, but relatives and nurses as well.42 In Menander’s Dyskolos Sostratos happily notes that his beloved “has not been raised among women and knows nothing of the bad things in this life and 37

BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 115. BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 64–65. 39 Eurip., Androm. 930–954 (transl. Kovacs) See also MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 59, 196– 197. In Mena., Dysk. the girl is a paragon of virtue and modesty, because she was brought up in seclusion, “away from the bad influence of older women” (HANDLEY, Dyskolos, 135; cf. Dys. 34–36). 40 Plut., Conj. praec. 40 (Mor 143EF–144A). The wife should not heed to other women’s talk about her husband’s infidelity. See also BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 86–89. 41 Oec. 3.1. 42 Peleus cautioned Neoptolemus and suitors in general against mothers’ evil influence on their daughters: “not to make a marriage-alliance with you or take into his house the foal of such a base mother. For such daughters reproduce their mothers’ faults. Take heed, suitors, to get the daughter of a good mother!” Eur., Androm. 620–623 (transl. Kovacs). The evil influence of the nurse is most prominent in Eur., Hipp. 38

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

189

hasn’t been frightened by some aunt or grandmother, but has grown up somewhat as a lady would, with a fierce father whose character is to hate evil.”43 Much later Juvenal will caution men against their mothers-in-law, who teach their daughter ways of behaviour that ruin a man’s prospect for happiness.44 These texts express the pervasive fear of the influence women may have on others, especially on women themselves. This topos sheds a new light on the derogatory treatment of widows gadding about from one house to the other, being gossipers and speaking what they ought not (1 Tim 5,13). Such criticism probably reflects anxieties about the influence widows may exert on other (female) members of the community.

3.3.3 Blaming heretical female disciples or discrediting male teachers? 2 Tim 3,6–7 is more significant for women’s possible involvement in alternative teachings, if not as teachers, at least as adherents.45 The epistle itself is an extensive polemic against the opponents: their repeated censure and reproof (2,16–18.24–25; 3,1–9.13; 4,3–4) alternates with exhortations to Timothy to follow Paul’s example, to rebuke the false teachers, to keep the deposit (paraqh,kh) and teach the doctrine that has been entrusted to him by the apostle, providing for its continuation (1,13–14; 2,2.14–15; 3,14–15; 4,1– 2.5). The passage belongs to the second46 and central polemic, which is also the most elaborate one (3,1–9). “Paul” prepares Timothy for the manifestation in the last days of men possessed by countless evils; a list of eighteen vices depicts them as the most wicked of creatures, lacking all human values.47 What is even worse, they possess the appearance of euvse,beia, but lack its du,namij. The picture is rather apocalyptic; the foretold events belong to grievous, dangerous, unbearable times (kairoi. calepoi,).48 These eschatological-apocalyptic events are imminent,49 since some of these men are evil opponents who break into houses and take captive (aivcmalwti,zw) the silly women (gunaika,ria). The image of these women is further darkened by their 43 Men., Dys. 384–389. HANDLEY notes that “Sostratos contemplates the blissful good fortune of marrying a girl who has not been spoiled by female domination, but brought up evleuqeri,wj by her father, as a young man might have been” (p. 196, ad locum; also p. 197: nurses’ bad influence). 44 Sat. 6, 231–241. 45 KARRIS suggests that “the opponents may have had success among the women, partly because of the emancipation doctrine which they espoused” (“Background”, 560, 563). From the examples quoted (1 Tim 2,11–15; 5,13; Tit 2,5) one might infer that he bases this claim on the mirror reading of the exhortations to submission. 46 If one does not also count 2 Tim 1,15 as such. 47 The list recalls that in 1 Tim 1,9–10. 48 See LSJ, s.v. calepai,nw(-o,j for the complex meaning of the idiom. 49 WEISER, 2 Tim, 259–260, remarking that the application of the apocalyptic topos of eschatological failure in 2 Tim underscores “Paul’s” sovereign foreknowledge of the events.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

190

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

depiction as heaped with sins and passions. The use of swreu,w probably infers that the sins of their mentors should be ascribed to them as well, just as their manifold passions allude to their teachers being filh,donoi. They are both victims of the false teachers (since they are captivated by them) and sinners themselves. Of course these are stock accusations, part of a welldesigned campaign meant to discredit the opponents and their adherents, allthrough the Pastoral corpus.50 Manqa,nw used in an absolute sense indicates that these women are the disciples of the opponents. Their learning is doubly disqualified – although their endeavour to learn is continuous, they will never be able to reach the knowledge or recognition of truth. E v pi,gnwsij avlhqei,aj is an important concept in the PE.51 vAlh,qeia is the content of the authorised teaching put forward by Paul and his representatives, synonymous to the u`giai,nousa didaskali,a and expected to be the object and content of faith.52 Knowledge of truth is therefore reserved to those who accept the apostolic proclamation. A v lh,qeia stands thus in opposition to the teachings of the adversaries, labelled as myths (2 Tim 4,4).53 Obviously, their disciples, the gunaika,ria included, may never reach the recognition of truth. According to a widespread motif men may act as teachers, corrupting and seducing women after intruding into the house. For Lucian, Cynics are immoral and seduce the wives of their hosts, “pretending that the women are going to become philosophers”.54 Various anecdotes accuse teachers of corrupting their female disciples. Suetonius accounts that Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the son-in-law and leading military official of Octavian, dismissed Q. Caecilius Epirota, a reputed grammarian and teacher of his wife, Caecilia Attica (daughter of Atticus, Cicero’ friend), because he was suspected of improper conduct toward his wife.55 Several other examples represent teachers as potential corruptors of women.56 50 Lucian claims that Cynics are characterised by a`rpagh, and avfrodi,sia; they are said to be idle and busybodies, yet they earn their existence better than common people who toil for their subsistence; they are also commonly intoxicated (Fug. 16–17.19). 51 Also 1 Tim 2,4; 4,3; Tit 1,1; 2 Tim 2,25. 52 VON LIPS, Glaube, 33–35 (avlh,qeia); 35–38 (evpi,gnwsij avlhqei,aj); 38–40 (avlh,qeia and didaskali,a). 53 Rightly VON LIPS, Glaube, 34. 54 Fug. 18. See also GLANCY, “Protocols”, 255–258. 55 Gram., 16; HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 36, 238, n. 69. As Suetonius shows that Epirota found refuge at Cornelius Gallus, and after his death he founded a school where he taught Vergil, BYRNE suspects that the adversity between Marcus Agrippa and Epirota expressed the enmity between circles of poets and their supporters (“Martial’s Fiction”, 263, n. 45). For a more political interpretation of the episode see HALLETT, “Centering”, 357–358. 56 The grammarian Curtius Nicias, who mediated an adulterous proposal to Pompey’s wife, cf. Suet., Gram. 14; Pudens, the teacher of Aemilia Lepida, daughter of M. Aemilius Lepidus, wife of Drusus (CIL VI, 9449). See HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 238, n. 70. Juvenal cautions the husband

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

191

Women’s incapacity to learn is another frequent topic of ancient mockery. The trait is sometimes paired with frivolity (study expresses women’s desire to show off). Learning is often associated with meddlesomeness, disregard for conventional morality and even sexual licentiousness, a topic that shall be addressed below in the excursus. This association reflects anxieties about the influence exerted by educated women, or is used to discredit men who associate with these women.57 Such accusations frequently reveal tensions between male political or philosophical adversaries. Therefore the allegation that male teachers intrude into households as corrupters of women,58 and women fall prey to their deceit (2 Tim 3,6–7) may be read from a different perspective. The charge may reflect the very topos of the teacher corrupting female disciples and that of the incapable and/or immoral female student. This works as a screen for deeper conflicts between the author and his opponents and does not prove that women learn heresy. Excursus. Problems with learning and educated women Compared to men, women had far less access to education (ĺ3.5.1). Writers questioned their aptitude to reason, to deliberate and to preserve their self-control.59 Prejudice made its way into Roman legislation that deprived women of various rights because of the infirmitas, levitas or imbecillitas of the sex.60 The outstanding intellectual abilities of some elite Roman women were said to mirror those of the father.61 With few exceptions philosophical schools were all-male. Only Pythagoreans, Cynics and Epicureans seem to have been more permissive.62 Few ancient authors about the cinaedus admitted to his house, who becomes his wife’s teacher and confident, eventually corrupting her. He does not seem to be a regular teacher, but acts as one, teaching immorality and perverting the wife (Juv., Sat. 6, Ox 1–2.17–26). 57 See HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 84–92, citing Sallust’s depiction of the educated and bold Sempronia, as a foil for the wicked Catiline (Cat. 24,3; 25), Plutarch’s image of Pompey’s wife, Cornelia, Cicero’s portrayal of Clodia Metelli, sister of his political adversary, P. Clodius Pulcher, the fears reflected in Musonius’ defence of women studying philosophy (Fr. 3), and Juvenal’s image of the educated woman (Sat. 6, 448–456). The views of Theophrast have been quoted earlier in this chapter. 58 Corruption is not related to the content of teaching, but to the influence on women’s mores. 59 Cic., Mur. 27 (infirmitas consilii), Sen., Cons. Marc. 1.1 (infirmitas muliebris animi); Val. Max. 9.1.3 (imbecillitas mentis), Liv. 3.48.8 (imbecillus animus); Mart. 7.69.6: Theophila is said to be “so little womanlike or common in her judgment” (tam non femineum nec populare sapit”); cf. HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 284. 60 Gai. 1.144 (propter animi levitatem; contra: 1.190); Dig. 22.6.9 (propter sexus infirmitatem), cf. HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 284. 61 Cic., Brut. 211 (Laelia), Q Fr. 1.3.3 (Tullia; Quint., Inst. 1.1.6 (Laelia); Val. Max. 8.3.3 (Hortensia). 62 Iambl., VP 36 (Pythagorean successors), also Porph., VP 19; Diog. Laert. 6.96–98 (Hipparchia and Crates), MALHERBE, Cynic Epistles, Ep. 28–31, 33. See the discussion of P. GORDON, “Remembering the Garden”, 221–243.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

192

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

defended the education of women, not because of a high opinion of female erudition, but out of practical or ethical considerations. Plato deemed that women should be educated in order to prevent an indulgent and wasteful lifestyle.63 Much later the Stoic Musonius, defending women’s intellectual capacity (lo,goj) and sense for moral values and virtues, advocated the education of girls,64 and encouraged women to study philosophy for tangible purposes.65 Philosophy makes better wives and mothers and enables women to manage the household well.66 Beside noting the contribution of philosophy to a virtuous life, Plutarch seems to have emphasised to some degree the intellectual dimension of learning. Knowledge of sciences and philosophy prevented women from giving credit to unreasonable ideas.67 Few ancient sources acknowledged the merits of learned women.68 Women’s desire to learn was deemed problematic. As shown above, Theophrast argued that education which went beyond the needs of household management made women idle (avrgote,raj), talkative (la,louj) and busybodies (perie,rgouj)..69 Musonius quoted similar fears, even when only to dismiss them: Some will say that women who associate with philosophers are bound to be arrogant (avuqa,deij) for the most part and presumptuous, in that abandoning their 63

Pl., Leg. 7, 805D: “the female sex must share with the male, to the greatest extent possible, both in education and in all else. […] The lawgiver ought to be whole-hearted, not half-hearted, – letting the female sex indulge in luxury and expense and disorderly ways of life, while supervising the male sex; for thus he is actually bequeathing to the State the half only, instead of the whole, of a life of complete prosperity” (transl. Bury). 64 Fr. 4, LUTZ, 42/43–48/49. 65 Fr. 3, LUTZ, 38/39–42/43. “Women are similar to men in their sense for what is right and wrong, beautiful or shameful, and since they share the same natural inclination to virtue (oivkei,wsij fu,sei pro.j avreth.n), they rejoice in the beautiful and the just and reject the contrary. A woman acquainted with philosophy would be just (dikai,a), an irreproachable companion (a;memptoj bi,ou kwinwno,j), an appropriate helper (o`monoi,aj avgaqh. sunergo,j), solicitous towards her husband and her children (avndro,j kai. te,knwn evpimelh.j khdemw,n), without greediness or selfishness (filokerdei,aj h' pleonexi,aj pa,nth| kaqara,)” (38/40–39/41). 66 His argument should be read from this perspective. Rightly, ENGEL, “Women’s Role”, 274– 276, 279–284 on Musonius. To be sure, however, for Musonius philosophy is primarily a science of life that enables men and women to perform their specific tasks in the best possible way. 67 Conj. praec. 48, Mor.145B. Plutarch advises Eurydice to study geometry, philosophy (Plato and Xenophon) and astronomy; due to study virtuous life grows deeper, superstition and credulity are countered. The exhortation implies that women, all the more the uneducated, are liable to such unreasonable thoughts. 68 See the epigraphic evidence quoted by SPICQ, Épîtres I, 389: SEG 2, 263 = IG IX/2, 62 = SIG3 532, late 3rd cent. (the decrees of Aetolian cities bestowing citizenship and privileges common for proxenoi on the poetess Aristodama of Smyrna); evidence for educated girls (Moschion, described as filogramma,te, Terti as filo,loge, SEG 21, 355). He adds references to a number of Latin authors: Sall., Cat. 24,3; 25,2 (Sempronia), Prop. 1.2.26–32; 7.11; 2.3.19–22; 11.6; Ov., Ars am. 2.281, Amor. 2. 4.17; Mart., Epigr. 10.35 (Sulpicia); Plin., Ep. 1,16.6; 4.19.2–4; Plut., Sept. 3.148. On Roman women and education see the extensive discussion by HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta. 69 avnagkaiota,th dV evpi. gunaikw/n h` tw/n gramma,twn dokei/ pai,deusij ei=nai kai. auvth. me,cri crhsi,mou pro.j oivkonomi,an\ to. dV evxakribou,menon evpi. ple,on avrgote,raj te poiei/ pro.j ta=lla kai. la,louj kai. perie,rgouj (Stob. 2.31.10–14, ed. Wachsmuth, 207).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

193

own households (avfe,menai tou/ oivkourei/n) and turning to the company of men they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms (meletw/si lo,gouj kai. sofi,zwntai kai. avnaluu,wsi sullogismou,j), when they ought to be sitting at home spinning.70 Musonius countered these allegations by arguing that philosophy would in fact make women more dedicated to their traditional tasks.71 To be sure, the very need to write an apology for women studying philosophy shows that his contemporaries held the opposite view. Seneca noted that Helvia had studied some philosophy, yet, her interest in liberal arts was checked by “the old-fashioned strictness” (antiquus rigor) of her husband,72 because of those women “who do not employ learning as a means to wisdom, but equip themselves with it for the purpose of display”.73 Conversely, a traditionally minded education had to promote female chastity, modesty and compliance with gender roles (motherhood) and check unnecessary instruction.74 Lucian deplored the fate of scholars employed by wealthy women, not least because the latter were vain, lacked intellectual aptitudes and used scholars and learning for display.75 Learned women were treated with contempt by Juvenal; their intellectual interests were vain and ostentatious. His reprehension of erudite women who converse on scholarly matters in the presence of men is passionate.76 Though disparaging them, Juvenal 70

Fr. 3, LUTZ, 43 (emphases added). “I should not expect the women who study philosophy to shirk their appointed tasks for mere talk any more than men, but I maintain that their discussions should be conducted for the sake of their practical application. […] [I]f a philosopher has or teaches reason, it is of no use if it does not contribute to the virtue of man’s soul. Above all, we ought to examine the doctrine which we think women who study philosophy ought to follow; we ought to see if the study which presents modesty as the greatest good can make them presumptuous, if the study which is a guide to the greatest selfrestraint accustoms them to live heedlessly, if what sets forth intemperance as the greatest evil does not teach self-control, if what represents the management of a household as a virtue does not impel them to manage well their homes. Finally, the teachings of philosophy exhort the woman to be content with her lot and to work with her own hands.” (Fr. 3, LUTZ, 43). 72 Sen., Helv. 17.3. 73 “Propter istas quae litteris non ad sapientiam utuntur sed ad luxuriam instruuntur minus te indulgere studiis passus est.” Helv. 17.4. Emphasis added. 74 Helv. 17.3–4. 75 Merc. cond. 36 (LCL). See the discussion in HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 37. 76 Juv., Sat. 6, 434–447. “But she’s much worse, the woman who as soon as she’s taken her place at dinner is praising Virgil and forgiving Elissa on her deathbed, who pits the poets against one another assesses them, weighing in her scales Maro on this side and Homer on the other. The schoolteachers give way (cedunt grammatici); the teachers of rhetoric are beaten (vincuntur rhetores), the whole party falls silent (turba tacet), there’ll not be a word from any lawyer or auctioneer (nec causidicus nec praeco loquetur) – and not even from another woman. […] Don’t let the lady reclining next to you have her own rhetorical style or brandish phrases before hurling her rounded syllogism at you. Don’t let her know the whole of history. Let there be a few things in books that she doesn’t even understand (sed quaedam ex libris et non intellegat). I loathe the woman who is forever referring to Palaemon’s Grammar and thumbing through it, observing all the rules of speech, or who quotes lines I’ve never heard, a female scholar. […] the woman who longs to appear excessively clever and eloquent should hitch up a tunic knee-high, on morals, like 71

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

194

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

implicitly admits that certain women could acquire an outstanding education.77 To be sure, the malignant comments imply that through erudition and rhetorical abilities the learned woman became more alike to a man, loosing her femininity.78 To sum up, these disparaging remarks voiced by a number of authors exemplify a topos of Greek and Roman literature and a conviction of many traditionally-minded writers – a woman should not learn, certainly not more than she needs for the purpose of household management. Education is futile, as women’s intellectual abilities are rather limited and their desire to learn only expresses their vanity. Moreover, education may have harmful consequences, as women become idle, they neglect their domestic duties and they become conceited and meddlesome, intervening in matters that should not concern them. It is conspicuous that the same views are echoed by 2 Tim 3,7 that scorns women’s vain desire to learn and possibly by 1 Tim 5,8.13, which accuses younger widows of idleness and meddlesomeness.

3.3.4 Summary There are no primary sources on what the opponents, men and maybe women, actually taught, but only polemical and vague references. “Orthodoxy” may not be seen at this time as an established set of doctrines from which the opponents have strayed. For these reasons we should give these opponents the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they were as much concerned with faithfulness to the Pauline tradition as our author, who eventually managed to impose his view as the only legitimate reading of Paul. Therefore the label of “heresy” should not be used uncritically, as denoting an unquestionable fact. Some women were more than likely among the opponents contested by the PE, at least as adherents. While certain women’s willingness to espouse an alternative (probably Pauline) tradition can be supported by 2 Tim 3,7 and maybe also by 1 Tim 5,13, the assumption that they were actually teaching a different (heterodox) doctrine stands on less firm ground. Moreover, even when assuming that certain women were actively teaching what the author regards as e`terodidaskali,a (though he never explicitly states that they did so), the author does not accuse these particular women of spreading heresy, a philosopher; thirsting to be deemed both wise and eloquent, She ought to tuck up her skirts kneehigh, sacrifice a pig to Silvanus, and pay just a quarter to enter the baths.” (transl. Morton Braund). 77 Whether the allusion to grammatici and rhetores being silenced is an indirect allusion to these women having achieved instruction on the corresponding levels is difficult to tell. Homer and Vergil were studied in grammar school, which implies that women who had knowledge of the matter had formal or informal education at this level. HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 18–19. The eloquence, the ability to discourse seems to suggest even some rhetorical training. 78 Through the knee-high garment, the male rites of Silvanus and the lower cost for the public bath.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women and heresy?

195

but in 1 Tim 2,12 he issues a general prohibition on women teaching, irrespective of the content of their teaching. Even when all women would teach the doctrine defended by the author, the very fact that women publicly teach (i.e. exert a form of authoritative speech in the community and thereby assume a function assigned in contemporary society to men) is a sufficient reason for a traditionally-minded author to issue a general prohibition. Further remarks may be needed. Although male teachers are clearly among the e`terodida,skaloi, men are not subjected to a similar proscription as that issued in 1 Tim 2,12 against women. This also questions the common supposition that women were excluded from public teaching because of their involvement in heresy as teachers. Were this the case, all men should have been logically excluded from teaching, as well. However, it is also clear that although not explicitly forbidden to do so, “ordinary” men are not to teach either. Men are entitled to teach only as far as they integrate in the ranks of officeholders, themselves authorised via a mediated “apostolic” legitimation.

3.4 Gender, authority and public speech In traditional mentality the female condition is incompatible with authority. This issue is particularly important for the discussion of roles and ministries in the PE, since this is the major reason for which women may not exert responsible roles in the ekklƝsia and may not teach. The prohibition to teach (1 Tim 2,11–12) is the focal point of the restrictive regulations concerning the participation of women in the life of the Christian polis. The issues addressed in the immediate context show the complexity of the matter and illuminate the cultural reasons of the prohibition. Notwithstanding the apparent looseness of the exhortation addressed to women (2,9–15), the various matters that surface from the text are deeply connected and the requests and prohibitions are held together by the issue of (exclusion from) authority. The exhortation starts with the reproof of expensive adornment at worship and thus introduces the subject of (display of) wealth. Wealth is not a neutral issue, but it constitutes a source of power. Therefore the restrictions imposed in v. 9 should be read in the light of ancient legislation and moral exhortations that bar women from exercising influence resulting from wealth and status (ĺ4.3.3). Women are demanded instead to embrace virtues expressing self-restraint. By reminding them of aivdw,j and swfrosu,nh (vv. 9.15) and of what is proper (o] pre,pei, v. 10) the author

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

196

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

instructs them to comply with ethical standards that limit self-assertiveness and subordinate their conduct to male authority (ĺ2.5.2). Women are subsequently demanded to keep silent and be submissive, and they are forbidden to teach and to exert authority over men. Teaching, more generally public speech, implies holding and exerting authority. The station of learner (v. 11) signifies in itself subordination to the teacher, given the teacher’s superiority in knowledge. Additional factors may be added, such as age and sometimes status. Instruction is a matter of authority, implying the superiority of the teacher over the disciple.1 The implicit subordination of the learner is made explicit by two qualifications of this learning: evn h`suci,a| and evn pa,sh| u`potagh/|; both make man’s authority emphatic. These provisions are supported by references to the account of creation and fall, in order to sustain male priority and their superiority, and female inferiority and their fallen status. This account buttresses male authority. Women are directed to comply with traditional gender roles, motherhood in particular, and are thereby relegated to the private sphere. In this chapter I shall address the cultural background of these regulations, focusing on women’s deprivation of authority in ancient mentality. The matter shall be discussed under two aspects: (1) the incompatibility between female condition and authority, leading to the censure of assertive women, and (2) the reproof of women’s (public) speech as an expression of authority. A third factor, namely the link between wealth and authority and the subsequent restrictions imposed on women’s (display of) wealth will be discussed in detail later on (ĺ4.3.3). These issues are connected to that of authority (dominant in 1 Tim 2,9–15) and they explain the prohibition from teaching. 3.4.1 The censure of female authority 3.4.1.1 Theoretical grounds It is a commonplace that ancient social and cultural norms subordinate women to men. In his Laws Plato addresses the qualities that make someone a ruler by nature or by divine will. In the first discussion of the matter the pairs of rulers versus ruled are: parents over children, the nobler (gennai,oi) over the ignoble, the older over the younger, the masters over the slaves, the stronger over the weaker, the wise over those lacking understanding and those designated by divine favour over those loosing at lots.2 It is obvious 1

SPICQ, Épîtres I, 380. This is precisely why, he notes, the apostle finds that a hierarchic relationship situating the woman in a superior position vis-à-vis the man is problematic. 2 Leg. 3, 690A-C, compare 714E.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

197

that superiority, either in wisdom, age, strength, birth or social position, grounds the claim for authority. While the relationship between women and men is not included in this list, later on a similar list of pairs of superior versus inferior states that parents are superior (krei,ttouj) to children, men to women and children and rulers to the ruled. Therefore superiors should be revered, especially if they are in authority.3 Aristotle is the eminent theoretician of female subordination. The man is by nature ruler over the woman, as he is superior (krei/tton) to her.4 The political rule of the husband over his wife is due to the fact that her deliberative faculty (to. bouleutiko,n) lacks full authority (a;kuron). Therefore, contrarily to political rule in the polis, this rule is permanently exercised by the man.5 Of all virtues, prudence or practical wisdom (fro,nhsij) is possessed only by the ruler, while the ruled may have only correct opinion (do,xa avlhqh,j).6 Aristotle’s characterisation of the woman as natural subject may be understood from his definition of fro,nhsij. Fro,nhsij, the faculty to deliberate, involves the ability to make decisions and the authority to issue commands about political and household issues.7 Thus, authority is essential to fro,nhsij, just as the latter is the indispensable virtue of the ruler. The woman is less capable to control passions and pain, therefore her status is comparable to that of the incontinent, whose ability to deliberate is thwarted by passion.8 3 Pl., Leg. 11, 917A. On women’s inferiority in all pursuits notwithstanding their nature and abilities being similar to those of men, compare Plt. 5, 454D–456A. See also BALCH, Wives, 24–26. He notes that the view of men as rulers over women is not Platonic, as suggested by Diog. Laert. 3.92, but Aristotelian. Yet the corroboration of Leg. 3, 690A-C with 11, 917A goes precisely in this direction, even when the pair man/ruler–woman/ruled does not appear explicitly in the first list. Though unconventional in terms of claiming similar education and military training for women and men alike, Plato is not a champion of equal rights. 4 Pol. 1.2.12, 1254B (cf. 1254A: to rule and to be ruled is both inevitable and expedient; tw/n sumfero,ntwn evsti,); 1.5.2, 1259B; 1.5.6, 1260A. “The male is by nature better fitted to command (h`gemonikw,teron) than the female”; 1259B. 5 Pol. 1.5.6, 1260A; see also LSJ s.v. a;kuron. In 1255B household government is monarchic; in 1259B the rule over wife is political, over children monarchic. Compare Eth. Nic. 8.10.5; 1160B (avrch. avristokratikh,), in virtue of his superiority. (Oligarchic rule disregarding women’s competence in female matters is nonetheless disapproved). See also [Arist.], Oec. 1.1 which assigns political rule to the government of the polis and describes rule over a household as monarchic (h` oivkonomikh, monarci,a). For Hierocles the necessity of marriage is proved by the fact that a governor is unconceivable without the governed, just as the governed without the governor (Stob. 4.22 pars I.23, Hense 4, 503; cf. also Florileg. 3, ed. Meineke, 8, 19 [ThLG, 2008.01.21]). 6 Pol. 3.2.11, 1277B. See BRADSHAW, “Political Rule”, 557–573. On the link between political authority and phronesis, and on doxa as attribute of the ruled: ROSLER, Political Authority, 92–95. 7 Eth. Nic. 1140B; 1143A; cf. BRADSHAW, “Political Rule”, 559–560. 8 BRADSHAW, “Political Rule”, 563–568, 570, in view of Eth. Nic. 1150B–1152A. Her warning against grounding women’s inferiority in Gen. anim., as a natural explanation for their deficient deliberative faculty is less convincing (568–570), and so is SALKEVER’s relativation of Aristotle’s negative views on female biology, “Women”, 239–252. Aristotle defines the woman as an

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

198

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

In a discussion probably informed by Aristotle, the Neopythagorean treatise On the happiness of the household attributed to Callicratidas distinguishes between despotic, overseeing or supervising (evpistatika,) and political rule (avrch,).9 The author shares with Aristotle the view that the husband’s rule over his wife is political. Remarkably, among the forms of authority subsumed to the supervising rule the author lists that of the teacher over the learner (toi. dida,skontej tw/n didaskome,nwn).10 The association between teaching and ruling shows that in ancient mentality teaching implies exerting a form of authority. As a consequence, women’s exercise of authority over men is commonly seen as contrary to nature, propriety and reason.11 The most common causes for such an “anomalous” situation are the age,12 wealth13 and the higher social standing of the wife, as well as the lack of or disregard for legislation curtailing women’s domineering. Education is also a source of authority.14 These conditions are very often combined. Aristotle criticises the Spartan incapable male, because of her inability (avdunami,a) to concoct catamenial blood into semen (Gen. anim. 1.20.18–22, 728A; cf. also 4.1, 765B–766A: e;sti dV a;rren h-| du,natai, ti( qh/lu de. h-| avdunatei/). The female is female precisely because of an incapacity. Through active generative virtue the male provides the form (the divine principle), whereas the female has passive generative virtue, contributing to procreation with the matter, the inferior principle (2.1, 732A; 2.4, 740B). The reasons for which male and female offspring are produced are also relevant (4.1–2, esp. 763B–767A). A man in his full reproductive capacity, at maturity, unexposed to harmful factors will produce male offspring. If the male generative virtue is unable to gain mastery, it will be mastered by the matter and will be turned into its opposite, i.e. into female. Thus females are born as a result of an accident, when the male generative power is deficient. 9 De dom. felic., THESLEFF, 105,10–106,6. The first aims at the ruler’s benefit, the second benefits the ruled, and the third secures the common good of ruler and ruled. That man’s rule over woman is political, not supervising is probably connected to Aristotle’s view that man’s authority stems from his natural (not acquired) superiority. 10 Callicrat., De dom. felic., THESLEFF, 105,14–17. The two other examples are the trainers over the athletes and the physicians over patients. Although it is not explicitly stated, one may note that these cases share superiority in acquired theoretical or practical knowledge. On the authority of the teacher over the disciple see also Ael. Arist., Or. 2.124; Diog. Laert. 3.91–92; BALCH, Wives, 26. 11 See Okkel., De univ. nat. 46.22–25 (THESLEFF, 136, 22–24), and Callicrat., De dom. felic. (THESLEFF, 106, 18–19): the rule of the wife over her husband is against the law of nature. 12 Philo, QG 1.27. Men’s marrying older women is contrary to nature. 13 Women, if epikleroi, may rule, not due to virtue, but to wealth and power (ouv dh. gi,nontai kat v avreth.n ai`` avrcai,( avlla. dia. plou/ton kai. du,namin; Arist., Eth. Nic. 8.10.5; 1161A). 14 Isomachus has trained his wife so well that she became capable to exert authority in the household. Her power is described with political, military and juridical metaphors: she is the guardian of law (nomofu,laka), her role is comparable to that of the commander (prou,rarcoj), of the council (boulh,) and of the queen (basi,lissa). Cf. Xen., Oec. 9,15. Nonetheless, it is evident that she may only hold authority over slaves, in no case over her husband. POMEROY notes that unlike Aristotle, Xenophon considers that a woman can be taught, and thus will be able to exercise authority; to this the literacy of Isomachus’ wife contributes in no small degree (7.36, cf. 9.10) (Oikonomikos, 34).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

199

constitution for having neglected appropriate legislation on women.15 Escaping control, they gained excessive economical influence through dowry, inheritance and owning of land. Hence they indulged in luxury, which contributed to the economic ruin of the country and exerted an unfortunate influence on the affairs of the polis, making use of authority over men.16 Upward marriage also undermines a man’s authority (ĺ4.3.3.3). 3.4.1.2 Reproval of women appropriating authority Criticism of women exercising authority over men pervades literary sources from drama to political theories. Drama shows the destructive power of domineering women. They meddle in the matters of the polis.17 Their irrationality justifies the need for male control.18 Sometimes even female characters are made to admit that they have to be submissive. Euripides’ Electra acknowledges a man’s rule over the household (aivscro,n( prostatei/n h` gunai/ka( mh. to.n a;ndra).19 In Sophocles’ Antigone Ismene accepts without question that women are to obey male authority. They are born to submit and they should not oppose men; this relationship is rooted in the physis.20 She 15 The need for appropriate legislation on women, especially given their natural inferiority regarding their capacity to virtue appears already in Pl., Leg. 7, 806C. The conclusions concerning the nature of legislation are yet different in Plato and Aristotle. 16 Pol. 2, 1269b. See also the discussion by BALCH, Wives, 35–37. 17 In Aesch., Sept. Eteocles censures women: “When she is powerful (kratou/sa), one cannot confer with her, but when she is afraid, she is an even greater evil for home and city (oi;kw| kai. po,lei ple,on kako,n). […] It is for the man, not for the woman, to make decrees (me,lei ga.r avndri,( mh. gunh. bouleue,tw)” (Sept. 188–190, 200, transl. Smyth, modified). As ZEITLIN puts it, Aeschylus uses the confrontation between the sexes “to guard against masculine aggrandizement and exclusiveness but also to control and modify the ‘unnatural’ exercise of feminine power” (“Patterns”, 103). Ironically, the context is that of a deadly fight between brothers, an expression of male hybris (ll. 677–699) and a consequence of divine punishment (ll. 745–749; Apollo’s indictment on the house of Laios). 18 “The other side of the story […] is the larger question of control and rule over women, who are not merely humble suppliants but also unruly and disruptive forces. As such, they represent not only the passions and emotions considered characteristic of women, but all such ungovernable instincts of fear and ill-omened anxiety, the expression of which elicits Eteocles’ violent reproach. The male appeals to reason, calculation, and rational strategy of a military encounter. The females turn to those other ungovernable forces – the gods – as their single resort.” (ZEITLIN, “Patterns”, 110) 19 Eur., El. 931–933. See ROISMAN, “Women’s Free Speech”, 109. Yet, this is the voice of a woman who has been given in marriage beneath her condition. See the discussion in WALCOT, “Plato’s Mother”, 18–20. 20 avll v evnnoei/n crh. tou/to me.n gunai/c v o[ti e;fumen( w`j pro.j a;ndraj ouv macoume,na) e;peita d v ou]nek v avrco,mesq v evk kreisso,nwn( kai. tau/t v avkou,ein ka'ti tw/nd v avlgi,ona (Soph., Ant. 61–64). This is why POMEROY defines Ismene as the typical woman (Goddesses, 109–110), and GRIFFITH views her as “unassertive, reasonable and conventional minded”, contrarily to Antigone, “uncompromising and single-minded” (“Antigone”, 127). Yet even Ismene is more complex than

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

200

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

associates men with holding power and ruling, women with obedience and avoidance of strife against men. Creon repeatedly claims that a disobedient woman is a manly woman and an evil one.21 Antigone’s defiance is compared to the attitude of an untamed, unbridled horse, a widespread association in ancient literature, alluding to the wild and unpredictable nature of women.22 A man may not accept to be subject to a woman, states Creon: “while I live, no woman shall rule me” (evmou/ de. zw/ntoj ouvk a;rcei gunh,).23 The authority of a wealthier and older wife may undermine a man’s ability to rule her. Such circumstances may even result in the unnatural situation when she, being more mature, will instruct her husband. Plutarch’s Amatorius is a telling example for this association of anomalous conditions.24 The attraction of Bacchon to a young widow, Ismenodora, is disproved by his lover, even though she has all the qualities expected from a wife, she lives a “life of decorum (eu;taktoj bi,on)”, is well-born and respectable,25 because she is older and wealthy. Wealth will make her want to rule and dominate him (a;rcein kai. kratei/n

sometimes acknowledged. Though fundamentally submissive, fearful and passive, facing her sister’s condemnation she challenges Creon, contradicting the rule of female silence and submission (ll. 536–537). 21 Soph., Ant. 571, 651. 22 Xen., Oec. 7,10; Plut., Conj. praec. 8, Mor. 139B; also GOULD, “Law”, 53, 57–58. The woman has to be tamed, broken in by the man, a symbol for achieving compliance and obedience. Plutarch uses the same metaphor of bridling and breaking in a horse to describe the rule of the statesman over the irrational, wild and untamed masses. See SAÏD, “Plutarch and the People”, 19–21. 23 Soph., Ant. 525 (transl. Lloyd-Jones, modified). The conflict between divine and human law places the issue of order and submission in a broader context. Male, royal, divinely instated authority stands in conflict with divinely sanctioned ethical laws. Ismene’s obedience to Creon’s decree results from the divine order: as a woman she has to submit to men, just as a subject to authorities. Yet, Antigone opposes Creon’s royal, yet human decree, to the divine law of honouring the dead (ta. tw/n qew/n). Soph., Ant. 66–67, cf. also 450–455. The situation is further complicated by Creon’s (justified) claim that Polyneices had fought against the city of his fathers and the shrines of his fathers’ gods (Ant. 199–200). This seems to turn Creon’s human decree against Polyneices into a restoration of the divine order. Nevertheless, the leader of the chorus, though submitting to Creon, tends to see in Polyneices’ burial the work of gods (Ant. 220 vs. 278–279). 24 The dialogue is regarded as a commentary on Plato’s views about love (expressed in the Symposium and in Phaedrus), and a reply to Epicurean disparagement of marriage. RIST, “Plutarch’s ‘Amatorius’”, 561, passim; GÖRGEMANNS, Dialog, 3–4, 29–30, 32. The dialogue defends heterosexual eros as philosophically justifiable aspiration to Beauty, as well as marriage. Commentators suggest that Plutarch incorporates Stoic views on marriage, like those of Musonius, Epictetus or Hierocles (RIST, 561; GÖRGEMANNS, 22–25). 25 Amat. 2, Mor. 749D. 769BC (23) extensively praises women’s virtues, and adds the special benefit they may draw from being endowed by nature with beauty; this will provide the licentious with pleasures, while “to the chaste, great resources also to gain the goodwill and friendship of her husband”. RIST rightly notes that she has all the qualities of an ideal bride (“Plutarch’s Amatorius”, 563–564.).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

201

dokou/san).26 Her choice of a young man who still needs to be instructed (paidagwgei/sqai deo,menon) indicates that she wishes to dominate him.27 Such a marriage would overturn the regular practice of mature men marrying very young women. Protogenes not only censures a woman’s ruling over her husband, but also opposes the woman as instructor to the man as learner.28 If read against the testimonies attesting that a man is normally the teacher of his wife (ĺ3.5.1), the blame refers to a reversal of the normal situation when the husband governs and teaches his wife. This shows that a woman’s rule over a man is unconceivable, even when she is superior in age, wisdom and wealth and morally irreproachable. Her interest in a man and her potential desire to govern him raises the question of her morals: “if she is really modest and orderly, let her sit decently at home (eiv d’ aivscu,netai kai. swfronei/( kosmi,wj oi;koi kaqh,sqw) awaiting suitors.”29 The romantic, but also fairly comical development of the story proves that such fears are not groundless – Ismenodora goes so far as abducting the hesitant Bacchon to release him from the influence of his lover. This obviously brings about sharp criticism, since women’s rule is contrary to the laws of nature (h` fu,sij paranomei/tai gunaikokratoume,nh).30 It is true that Plutarch, in his plea for heterosexual love, marriage and philia between man and woman31 will defend Ismenodora. The low birth of the wife is no guarantee against her power and evil influence on her husband (he thus dismisses the dominion of an inferior woman over the man). Moreover, some obscure and poor men have married women superior to them in birth and wealth, yet have not been destroyed, nor did they lose their dignity, but “they have enjoyed honour and exercised benevolent authority to the end of their life together (timw,menoi kai. kratou/ntej met’ euvnoi,aj sungkatebi,wsan)”.32 This view echoes the Advice, where Plutarch calls to Polyanus’ attention that a man should not debase his noble and wealthy wife while still exercising mastery, but he should grow up to her and treat her according to her dignity in bridling her. Thus control is implied, even when the wife has a higher standing.33 Consequently, wealth in itself is not a reason to reject a 26 Amat. 7, Mor. 752E. Even when Pisias’ and Protogenes’ disproval is anchored in the plea of the homosexual camp against heterosexual love, their viewpoint expresses a pervasive sociocultural fear. Rightly, RIST, “Plutarch’s ‘Amatorius’”, 561, passim. 27 Amat. 7, Mor. 752F. 28 Cf. also 9, Mor. 754D. 29 Amat. 8, Mor. 753B. 30 Amat. 11, Mor. 755BC. The argument from nature, coming from the homosexual camp, might be intentionally ironic, after Daphnaios’ similar argument, against homosexuality (751C, DE: love between males is para. fu,sin). 31 “There can be no greater pleasures (h`donai,) derived from others nor more continuous services (crei/ai) conferred on others than those found in marriage, nor can the beauty of another friendship be so lightly esteemed or so enviable as when a man and a wife keep house in perfect harmony” (Amat. 24, Mor. 770A, transl. Helmbold; cf. Hom., Od. 6.183–184). Plutarch joins Daphnaios’ argument about marriage being the holiest fellowship (i`erwte,ra kata,zeuxij, 4, 750C). The advocates of heterosexual love defend marriage as an honourable institution sustained by religion, providing for the immortality of the human race, and promoting friendship (RIST, “Plutarch’s Amatorius”, 565). 32 Amat. 9, Mor. 754A. 33 Conj. praec. 8, Mor. 139B. A man whose wife is beautiful and wealthy should not make her

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

202

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

woman, except when she is sought for her wealth, regardless of her character.34 The main line of Plutarch’s argument is that wise and self-restrained men, although of inferior status, may still be able to exercise authority over their wealthy and noble wives.35 The normal situation of women being ruled by men is not necessarily compromised. A slight concession is made, however, to the option of men being ruled by women: “no one is his master, no one is unrestricted. Since this is so, what is there dreadful about a sensible older woman piloting (kubernh,sei) the life of a young man? She will be useful because of her superior intelligence; she will be sweet and affectionate because she loves him”.36

Women’s rule over their husbands and their meddling in public affairs is a constant topic of traditionalist Roman criticism. Apparently Cato censured Roman women with the proverbial “all mankind rules its women and we rule all mankind, but our women rule us”.37 Livy’s Cato harshly reproves women’s interference in the debate over the repeal of the Lex Oppia, as an unacceptable exercise of authority, a meddling in state affairs of no concern for them and an attempt to rule over their husbands.38 Women’s authority over men is anomalous, leads to dramatic consequences for both household and state and it should be seen as an assault to tradition, legality and decorum. Domineering, ambitious wives and mothers are a particular target of criticism in Greek and Roman authors. Plutarch condemns Fulvia’s authoritarian behaviour and her ruling over Marc Antony: She was a woman who took no thought for spinning or housekeeping, nor would she deign to bear sway over a man of private station, but she wished to rule a ruler and command a commander (a;rcontoj a;rcein kai. strathgou/ntoj strathgei/n). Therefore Cleopatra was indebted to Fulvia for teaching Antony to endure a woman’s sway (didaskali,a […] gunaikokrati,aj ovfei,lein), since she took him over quite tamed, and schooled at the outset to obey women.39

unsightly (a;morfon) and poor, but he should show his evgkratei,a and fro,nhsij, so that she may be governed and guided (kratei/tai kai. a;getai) with justice and benefit (Amat. 9, Mor. 754 B). 34 Conj. praec. 14, Mor. 139. 35 GÖRGEMANNS appropriately parallels Plutarch’s dismissal of female authority here with Conj. praec. 33 (Mor. 142 DE); Dialog, 148–150. 36 gunh. nou/n e;cousa presbute,ra kubernh,sei ne,ou bi,on avndro.j( wvfe,limoj me.n ou=sa tw/| fronei/n ma/llon h`dei/a de. tw/| filei/n kai. proshnh,j (754D; transl. Helmbold). 37 Plut., Apopht. Rom. 198D (a;nqrwpoi tw/n gunaikw/n a;rcousin, h`mei/j de. pa,ntwn a;nqrwpon, h`mw/n de. ai` gunai/kej). This criticism is consistent with Livy’s image of Cato. 38 “Review all the laws with which your forefathers restrained their licence and made them subject to their husbands; even with all these bonds you can scarcely control them. If you suffer them to seize these bonds one by one, and wrench themselves free and finally to be placed on a parity with their husbands, do you think that you will be able to endure them? The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.” Liv. 34.3.1–9 (transl. Sage, modified, emphases added). See further 4.3.3. 39 Plut., Ant. 10.3, compare 30.3–4. For Cleopatra’s authority and negative influence over Marc

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

203

Earlier Tacitus describes Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, as an imperious woman lacking self-restraint (“matrem muliebri inpotentia”), since she brought the entire state under the rule of a woman (“serviendum feminae”) and interfered in public matters (“gravis in rem publicam mater”).40 Many more examples show that influential women were assessed in a very negative way.41 One should be aware, however, that sources are often biased, as they present characters from the perspective of their political rival, or with other agenda in view.42 Women associated with the adversary are often a mere foil or an instrument of defamation. That is why Marc Antony is depicted as effeminate and subdued by authoritative women like Fulvia and Cleopatra.43 What matters here is not so much the historical reliability of the image of certain women, but the fact that in ancient mentality the female condition is incompatible with authority. Women are constantly demanded to avoid exerting power over their husband or sons.44 Women’s seizing authority is sometimes interpreted as a sign of their frustration for being excluded from public roles or for other reasons.45 Seneca praises his mother for avoiding the example of domineering mothers: Antony, see Plut., Ant. 25; 29 (she keeps him under constant tutelage, paidia/j avei,; diepaidagw,gei); 36–37; 62; for a discussion see SEVERY, Augustus and the Family, 37–38. 40 Tac., Ann. 1.4; 1.10; 4.57; 5.1. Cf. SPÄTH, “Frauenmacht”, 160, 183–184. 41 WALCOT, “Plato’s Mother”, 12–31; MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 165. Walcot discusses the relationship between Olympias and Alexander the Great, Servilia and Brutus, Cornelia and the Gracchi, Aurelia and Caesar, Atia and Augustus, Julia and Marc Antony, Vespasia Polla and Vespasian, Agrippina and Nero (pp. 20–24). For the latter case see Suet., Nero 9.3; Tac., Ann. 13.2; 13.6; 14.11. On Agrippina’s alleged influence on Nero and Claudius (another emperor depicted as giving in to the authority of women), see the critical discussion by SPÄTH, “Frauenmacht”, 161, 185–186. 42 E.g. the critique of the emperor, of the imperial family or of the Principate as such. See SPÄTH, “Frauenmacht”, 202–205. 43 In Augustus’ speech, construed by Cassius Dio, Antony is discredited for being enslaved to a woman: 50.24.7 (Egyptians are despicable for being enslaved to a woman and not to a man); 50.26.5. Antony has become effeminate: 50.27.4,6. For all these reasons, Romans are encouraged to fight Antony, allowing no woman to make herself the equal of man (50.28.3). 44 In a fragment from a lost comedy of Philemon (probably Aristotle’s contemporary) we read: “A good wife, Nicostrate, should be submissive to her husband, not superior. A wife who defeats her husband is a great evil” (avgaqh/j gunaiko,j evstin( w= Nikostra,th( mh. krei,tton ei=nai tavndro,j( avll v u`ph,koon) gunh. de. nikw/s v a;ndra kako.n me,ga); Stob. 4.23.20; cf. Philemon fr. 132 Kock, in Neuer Wettstein II/1, 864; Engl. GOESSLER, “Advice”, in POMEROY, Advice, 106, n. 18. Also quoted by DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 47. Plutarch repeatedly advocates a man’s authority over his wife (Conj. praec. 11, Mor. 139D; 6.8, Mor. 139AB), and stresses that it is shameful for a woman to rule over her husband (Conj. praec. 33, Mor. 142 DE). 45 WALCOT has analysed the maternal influence that allegedly contributed to the emergence of a timocrat, a higly ambitious man, striving for wealth and honours, starting from Plato’s assessment that such a man’s character was formed under the influence of an assertive mother, dissatisfied with her unambitious husband (Resp. 549C–540B). Walcot assumed that Plato’s depiction

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

204

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

I well know that your heart values nothing in your dear ones except themselves. Let other mothers look to that – the mothers who make use of a son’s power with a woman’s lack of self-control (muliebri inpotentia), who, because they cannot hold office (feminis honores non licet gerere), seek power through their sons (per illos ambitiosae sunt), who both spend their sons’ inheritances and hope to be their heirs, who wear out their eloquence in lending it to others.46

Being ruled by women becomes a mark of barbarian inferiority.47 Tacitus evokes the rebellion of the Britons against Roman rule, under the leadership of Boudicea, generis regii femina, while noting in passing that they make no distinction of sex with respect to ruling (“neque enim sexum in imperiis discernunt”).48 Although Tacitus recounts with some understanding the grievances that lead to the upheaval (15), the overall picture is that of a barbarous horde ready for any cruelty, that would have overcome Roman rule and implicitly civilisation, had the consular governor Suetonius Paulinus not intervened in time and prevailed over the insurgents.49 The issue of female leadership is taken up again with similar ambivalence in Calgacus’ incitation to revolt.50 Women’s rule is debasing for men. In one description of a barbarian people, the Sitones, Tacitus notes that the women commonly rule (“femina dominatur”), an anomalous condition that makes men fall lower “not merely than freeman but even than slaves” (“in tantum non modo a libertate sed etiam a servitute degenerant”).51 3.4.1.3 Limited acceptance of female authority Women may only exceptionally and temporarily assume authority and enter the male sphere. In some cases their authority clearly results from their status and wealth. was grounded in his knowledge of Xanthippe’s domineering over Socrates, and in his personal experience with his mother, Perictione. The study, inspired by Freudian psychology, is overly optimistic about historians’ possibility to reconstruct the personality and psychological development of ancient individuals, and somewhat naïve in the reading of ancient sources. “Plato’s Mother”, 12–31. 46 Sen., Helv. 14.2 (transl. Basore, emphases added). 47 Compare the discreditation of the Egyptians in Augustus’ speech: Cass. Dio, 50.24.7. 48 Tac., Agr. 16. 49 One may argue that Tacitus appreciates some of the Germans’ customs, but this concerns their conservative morals (Germ. 18–19). 50 Tac., Agr. 31.4 (transl. Hutton). 51 Tac., Germ. 45.9 (a Germanic people in Northern Europe.) For a similar, rather contemptuous view on a people dominated by women see already Arist., Constitutions of the Lycians: “The Lycians spend their lives as brigands. They don’t employ laws, but customs, and from ancient times they have been ruled by women” (M.R. Dilts [ed.], Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politarum, London, 1971, 29,1–3, quoted by BALCH, Wives, 37, cf. 47, n. 17).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

205

The role of elite women in saving the city and their interference in public affairs figures prominently in the legendary story of the entreaty to Coriolanus, especially in the version of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch.52 In Dionysius this uncommon action is due to the inability of the senators to reason with Coriolanus. His mother, Veturia,53 acts in a rather unusual way: she interferes in matters of war, speaks in public before the military,54 and compels her son to give up the siege of Rome. The entreaties and actions of Coriolanus’ female relatives eventually save the country, while, in his words, they conquer victory over him.55 The authority of the mother is emphatic. He receives her “as if he were going to meet a superior power”, laying aside the insignia of his office.56 Her successful intervention is described by her son with terms typical for male honour and reputation.57 Coriolanus is depicted as emotional, soft-hearted and passionate;58 a man whose decision is accepted by the Volscians for his noble character, not for his authority.59 Plutarch evokes another legendary woman, Aretaphila of Cyrene, who saves her country from tyrannical rule. Nevertheless, when proposed to rule (suna,rcein kai. sundioikei/n toi/j avri,stoij avndra,si th.n politei,an), she declines and withdraws from the public stage to the women’s quarters (gunaikwni/tij) in order to dedicate her life to female occupations pursued in h`suci,a, in the company of friends and family.60 This is what women are expected to do. These examples show that in exceptional circumstances, when the community is in danger, women may temporarily hold authority, if this is the pre52 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8, 39.1–56.4; Plut., Cor. 33–36; cf. also Comp. Alc. Cor. 4.3–4. Livy’s version is much shorter and minimizes the role of women (Hist. 2,40). 53 In Dionysius and Livy Veturia is Coriolanus’ mother and Volumnia his wife. In Plutarch the mother is Volumnia, the wife Virgilia. 54 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.45.2–3. 55 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.54.1: “Yours is the victory, mother, but a victory which will be happy for neither you nor me. For though you have saved your country, you have ruined me, your dutiful and affectionate son.” Compare Plut., Cor. 36,4: “What have you done to me, mother?” […] “You are victorious; and your victory means good fortune to my country, but death for me, for I shall withdraw vanquished, though by you alone.” (transl. Carry, modified). 56 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.44.4. 57 “Not only will you yourself most likely gain immortal glory for having rescued your country from so great a danger and terror, but you will be the cause to us also of some honour in the eyes of our husbands for having ourselves put an end to a war which they had been unable to stop […]. It is a glorious venture, Veturia, to recover your son, to free your native land, to save your countrywomen, and to leave to posterity an imperishable reputation for virtue.” Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.40.4–5. Emphases added. 58 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.45.1. 59 Plut., Cor. 36,5. 60 Mul. virt. 19, Mor 255E–257E (257DE).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

206

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

condition of deliverance. However, as Lin Foxhall puts it, women are entitled to do so only as long as there is no suitable man with legitimate authority: “virtuous women fill the power vacuum, but withdraw to their proper place (or will hopefully do so) once the crisis is over and patriarchy is restored.”61 3.4.2 Public speech, authority and gender 3.4.2.1 Speech as instrument of authority (Public) speech is a powerful instrument for acquiring and holding authority, an essential element of civic and religious offices. Isegoria, the equal right of citizens to openly address the governing institutions of the polis, just as parrhƝsia, the right to freely speak one’s mind on public affairs, were considered core values of the Athenian democracy. As Vernant has shown, “[t]he system of the polis implied, first of all, the extraordinary pre-eminence of speech over all other instruments of power. Speech became the political tool par excellence, the key to all authority in the state, the means of commanding and dominating others.”62 Vernant essentially referred to public speech in court or in the assembly, functioning as an instrument of power through its persuasive force. Yet, this description applies, with certain variations, to all forms of public speech. Isegoria and parrhƝsia obviously concerned only men.63 Moreover, in Athens, freedom of speech, the right to express one’s mind and will, was essentially the prerogative of the aristocratic circles, of those holding political authority.64 In Rome the appropriation of public speech by the political elite was even clearer.65 In view of this association, free speech, as an expression of authority, pertained not so much to men in general, but to male elites. 61

FOXHALL, “Foreign Powers”, 150; see also WAGENER, Ordnung, 209, n. 214. VERNANT, The Origins of Greek Thought, 49. 63 On the importance of free speech for Athenian democracy, and its appropriation by sophists, generally counting for parvenus, to the resentment of aristocratic circles, MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 9–15, on its restriction to male citizens: 19–22; also ROISMAN, “Women’s Free Speech”, 91. 64 On the aristocratic roots of isegoria see already VERNANT, The Origins of Greek Thought, 61. On the aristocratic understanding of isegoria, and a largely comparable understanding of freedom of speech in Rome: RAAFLAUB, “Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech”, 41–59. 65 RAAFLAUB maintains with good reason that in Rome freedom of speech, at least in the political sphere, “was tied to dignitas and auctoritas and thus fully available, despite restrictions applying to all, only to the highest level of the elite. Although valued by all, and used as a matter of course in daily and social life, in Rome’s political sphere it ultimately was a means to an end: an instrument to maintain elite equality and predominance. […] It was important but still only as a subset of a more general concept of aristocratic libertas.” (“Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech”, 57). Reflecting on “the equation of eloquence and power”, CONNOLLY notes: “In the speeches they delivered in the senate and Forum, in their control of civic rituals such as games and triumphs, and in their patronage 62

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

207

In Greco-Roman antiquity women were essentially deprived of the right to speak in public.66 Records of women pleading their cause or otherwise speaking in public are exceptional and most often condemned. It is not by accident that Roman law bars women from all civic offices and implicitly deprives them of the right to speak in public. This legal exclusion from public speech is underpinned by a vast ethical literature, according to which decent female behaviour entails silence, obviously in public and preferably in private as well. As discussed earlier, the requisite of silence is part of the topos of female hiddenness (ĺ2.6.1). 3.4.2.2 The ambivalent image of speaking and teaching Greek women As silence is the absolute norm of female conduct in antiquity, women speaking in public are entirely exceptional. In the Greek world outspoken women who criticise despotic rulers or the failure of the male political class appear only on the stage (and even there they are embodied by male actors). Such is Antigone, who confronts the impious edict of the tyrannical Creon, or the chorus of Theban women challenging the arrogant Eteocles.67 These women’s transgression of the social boundaries, manifest in their speech, aims at defending piety toward relatives (Antigone), or at preventing a disaster (fratricide and the ruin of the city, in the case of the Theban women).68 Thus female interference in the matters of the polis, manifested in their speech, although checked on several occasions as an unseemly exercise of authority,69 appears to be vital.70 Women’s speech rightfully questions of the arts, especially the public productions of comedy and tragedy during civic festivals (ludi), the senatorial order spoke, and patronized the speech of others, with a view to maintaining the traditional dominance of the established families to which they already belonged or which they wished to join.” (The State of Speech, 43). She goes on emphasising that public speech is not merely an instrument of domination, but functions as “popular discourse of identity formation” (43–44). However, the association between free speech and elite authority is clear in her examples on p. 46. See also p. 56: “Although Roman citizens in the republican period enjoyed equality under the law […], candidacy for political office, jury duty, and participation in public speech were limited to men of substantial wealth”. 66 MCCLURE notes that women’s ritual and non-ritual speech was regarded as dangerous precisely because of the “pervasive equation between speech and power” (Spoken Like a Woman, 37). 67 On these plays ĺ4.1. On the issue of speech in these plays: ROISMAN, “Women’s Free Speech”, 95–113. More ambivalent is the speech of Cassandra in Aesch., Ag., and that of Electra in the homonymous tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides. MOSSMAN, “Women’s Speech”, 374–384. 68 Cf. their advice in ll. 677–682, 686–688, 692–694, passim. 69 See also Aesch., Sept. 224–225 (women’s admonition to obedience, peiqarci,a), 230–232 (public religious roles – sacrifices and oracles, pertain to men; women should keep silent and stay at home; avndrw/n ta,d v evsti,( sfa,gia kai. crhsth,ria […]( so.n d v au= to. siga/n kai. me,nein ei;sw do.mwn). 70 “It is this transgression of the norm and all that it implies in its challenge to masculine control that is often the focusing point for the dramatic conflict between the sexes; it is the tell-tale

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

208

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

male, political authority. It is difficult to tell the extent to which the outspokenness of these characters or their criticism of tyranny awakened sympathy in contemporary spectators or readers. It is all the more difficult to know whether such speech would have found acceptance in real life. An even more bewildering case is that of the women in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae and Lysistrata. Praxagora’s quasi-male eloquence, learnt from orators,71 is contrasted to the shallowness of her female companions. This makes her appear as a man-like woman. For the sake of comedy, her speech in the assembly will be persuasive and women will seize authority over the polis. Lysistrata, rehearsing her speech before the assembled Athenian and Spartan women, states that although she is a woman, she has intelligence and rhetorical abilities, having been taught by her father and by elderly men.72 This strengthens the view that rhetorical skills are exceptional in women. Lysistrata’s outspoken confrontation of male authority may have a religious context, which makes her speech more acceptable.73 Yet, in both plays, women’s speech is ambivalent and is constantly associated with deception.74 Female speech is commonly described in a derogatory manner. Women are notoriously talkative, liable to gossip;75 their speech is idle and empty, moreover, dangerous.76 When their speech “is not adequately held in check, either by a woman’s own sense of modesty or by the authority of her husband, it threatens to subvert the stability and continuity of the oikos,”77 and even of the entire community.78 The only accepted form of expression pertains to the sphere of religion and it will be addressed later on. Except for public speech in religious contexts, other forms of verbal expression by women are associated in Greek sources with sexual license. The most telling case is that of the sign of the typical tragic situation and of the crisscrossing claims of male and female interests.” ZEITLIN, “Patterns”, 109. Theban women’s speech is comparable to that of Tecmessa in Sophocles’ Ajax: in both cases women try (in vain) to persuade the warrior to give up his aggressive pursuit of honour and to avoid the imminent disaster. This seems to show some awareness of the ambivalent outcome of women’s exclusion and silencing. 71 Ar., Eccl., 243–244. 72 Ar., Lys. 1126–1127. 73 On Lysistrata’s probable identity with Lysimache, priestess of Athena Polias: FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 8; HENDERSON, “Women”, 136. 74 Rightly, MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 26–28, 62–68, tracing back the association of female persuasive speech with deception to Hesiod’s depiction of Pandora (ĺ3.5.4.5). 75 BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, passim. 76 MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 56–62 (lalei/n in Ar., Eccl. 120; women as talkative, la,louj, in Thesm. 393); 160–162, 182–183 (Eur., Andr., esp. Hermione). 77 MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 182–183. 78 Also BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 78–83, 86–89.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

209

hetaerae,79 who may participate in symposia and intervene in the conversation of men. There are very few records of women whose speech and teaching is accepted, even when it is with some reticence. Diogenes Laertius reports a tradition about Themistoclea, a priestess of Delphi from whom Pythagoras seems to have drawn his ethical teachings.80 Aspasia deserves some attention, due to her ambivalent representation. Ancient sources evoke her intelligence,81 her rhetorical competence and, seemingly, Socrates’ high regard for her, yet they do so in a puzzling manner.82 In Plato’s Menexenus Socrates refers to her as his and Pericles’ teacher of rhetoric and as the author of Pericles’ speech;83 she is said to surpass many in rhetorical aptitudes, including Pericles.84 Scholars disagree about the purpose of the dialogue and implicitly about the earnestness of such statements about Aspasia.85 One can hardly be certain that her praise is not as sarcastic as that of oratory in general and is not subordinated to Plato’s agenda.86 One is also left in uncertainty about the seriousness or, conversely, the subtle irony to be found in the closing lines of the dialogue repeating Aspasia’s praise.87 In the end, it will be Pericles, of course, not 79

MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 24. fhsi. de. kai. vAristo,xenoj ta. plei/sta tw/n hvqikw/n dogma,twn labei/n to.n Puqago,ranȱ para. Qemistoklei,aj th/j evn Delfoi/j. Diog. Laert. 8.8. 81 One can only speculate whether Aspasia’s learning had to do with her Milesian origin. 82 Pl., Menex. 235E–236B; 249DE; Xen., Mem. 2.6.36; Oec. 3.15. 83 An epitaphios logos, probably the Platonic counterpart of the funeral oration delivered by Thucydides’ Pericles. 84 Pl., Menex. 235E. 85 GLENN e.g. takes all statements in Menex. at face value (“Sex”, 186–191), but see the criticism of her methodological fallacy by GALE, “Historical Studies”, 363–372. WHAITE also defends the earnestness of the Menex. and even reconstructs her biography partly on the basis of the events mentioned in the funeral oration (“Aspasia of Miletus”, 75–81). S. COLLINS and STAUFFER reject the claim that Aspasia composed a speech for Pericles, and think that the speech ridicules Athenian politics (“Challenge”, 88–90). The oration constituting the body of the dialogue includes references to events that occurred after the death of Socrates and probably of Aspasia, a fact that adds to the improbability of the dialogue being intended as a historical account. SALKEVER, “Socrates’ Aspasian Oration”, 133–143; MONOSON, “Remembering Pericles”, 494; COLLINS, STAUFFER, “Challenge”, 90. 86 It is commonly agreed that Plato’s funeral oration is a concealed criticism of Periclean politics, and a disparagement of rhetoric. SALKEVER, “Socrates’ Aspasian Oration”, 134; S. COLLINS, STAUFFER, “Challenge”, 92–99; MONOSON, “Remembering Pericles”, 491–495. 87 Menexenus marvels that Aspasia, though only a woman, is capable of composing the speech (249D). He continues with the ambiguous affirmation that he has often met Aspasia, and knows what she is like. The equivocal character of such recognition is strengthened by Socrates’ further question (“Well, then, don’t you admire her, and are you not grateful to her now for her oration?”; ibid.). True, Plato has Socrates conclude with a promise to share with him in the future many other excellent political speeches of Aspasia (pollou.j kai. kalou.j lo,gouj parV auvth/j politikou,j, 249E). 80

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

210

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

Aspasia, who delivers the oration.88 Even when Plato has Socrates, jestingly or seriously, recognising her rhetorical competence, he does not go so far as having her speak in public, a decision consistent with women’s exclusion from offices. Even when one takes Plato’s claim seriously, Aspasia figures merely in the background of the dialogue and her voice is heard only via Socrates’. In Xenophon, Socrates recalls the insights he has gained from Aspasia. Xenophon leaves no doubt that Socrates acknowledges Aspasia’s judgment.89 Much later Cicero quotes her as using rhetorical techniques known to be typical for Socrates.90 Plutarch, relying on an account by Aeschines, evokes her influence on contemporary politicians, her intellectual abilities and her discourse, admired by philosophers like Socrates and friends.91 Plutarch’s version does not lack some malice.92 Even so, Plutarch, though aware of the playful character of the Menexenus, takes for a fact Plato’s claim that Aspasia discussed matters of rhetoric with many Athenians.93 Later traditions reiterate the view that Aspasia taught rhetoric to Socrates94 and Pericles.95 One may not know the extent to which Plutarch relies on his source or refigures Aspasia according to his own purposes. Remarkably, out of three roughly contemporary authors (Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes), only Aristophanes describes her as a prostitute.96 It may well be that the image of Aspasia as a hetaera reflects a traditional association of educated and outspoken women intruding into the public sphere with sexual licentiousness.97 88

GLENN, “Sex”, 188. Xen, Mem. 2.6.36 (avoiding deception in match-making); Oec. 3.15 (Critobulus, instructed by Socrates on marriage and household management, could acquire further wisdom from Aspasia). 90 Cic., Inv. 1.51–53, drawing from Aeschines’ lost dialogue Aspasia (induction). See FORTENBAUGH, “Cicero, «On Invention» 1.51–77”, 28–29. 91 “what great art of power this woman had, that she managed as she pleased the foremost men of the state, and afforded the philosophers the occasion to discuss her in exalted terms and at great length (ti,na te,cnhn h' du,namin tosau,thn e;cousa tw/n te politikw/n tou.j te prwteu,ontaj evceirw,sato kai. toi/j filoso,foij ouv fau/lon ouvd’ ovli,gon u`pe.r au`th/j pare,sce lo,gon).” Plutarch notes that according to some, Pericles valued Aspasia for her wisdom and political ability (w`j sofh,n tina kai. politikh.n); Per. 24 (transl. Perrin). 92 He evokes Aspasia’s alleged influence with Pericles in starting the Samian war and censures her indecent occupation and her relationship with a low-born, low-minded man, after Pericles’ death. He suggests that Pericles’ attraction to her was erotic, rather than intellectual, and concludes with her reputation as a harlot. Her activities were far from honourable or decent (ouv kosmi,ou proestw/san evrgasi,aj ouvde. semnh/j), as she apparently kept courtesans in her house (Per. 24.4). 93 do,xan ei=ce to. gu,naion evpi. r`htorikh/| polloi/j vAqhnai,wn o`milei/n (Per. 24., referring to Pl., Menex.). 94 Athen., Deipn. 5.61. 95 Philostr., Ep. 73, transl. in PENELLA, “Philostratus’ Letter”, 162. GALE suggests that Philostratus simply wished to please the learned Julia Domna (“Historical Studies”, 368). 96 Ar., Acharn. 523–532 (a prostitute, having a role in the initiation of the war) 97 HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 84–86, on Roman examples. 89

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

211

There can be no certainty about the biography of Aspasia. What matters though is her effective history that suggests, on the one hand, that in rather exceptional cases educated women of the legendary past were envisaged as teaching (erudite) men, yet, on the other hand, public opinion associated women’s education, intelligence, rhetorical ability and political influence with licentiousness. Diotima of Mantineia is another intriguing (literary) character, depicted by Plato in his Symposium as engaging in a long discussion with Socrates.98 Leaving aside the content of her exposition (the nature and purpose of love), the part of the dialogue most relevant for the matter is that where she is presented as teaching Socrates. Socrates, on several turns, acknowledges her wisdom and his own ignorance of the matter.99 Diotima uses the same dialectic-inductive method as Socrates, a fact that may lead the reader to suspect that her speech is merely a construction of Plato.100 It is not clear whether Diotima is a historical or fictitious character.101 What matters, however, is that Plato allows a woman to be the teacher of Socrates. One needs to note, nevertheless, that in spite of Socrates’ professed esteem for her, in the end Diotima is not present at the symposium. She lives only in Socrates’ recollection. She does not actually speak in public, but her views are heard through Socrates’ exposition.102 Therefore Diotima is both speaking and silent, present in her discourse, yet physically absent from the public scene. To be sure, even when she would be a fictitious character, this is one of the few cases of women teaching men recorded in positive terms. Records of historical Greek women whose public speech found acceptance are exceptional. Such is Aristodama of Smyrna, the late third century BCE epic poetess, honoured in Lamia for having given several public recitations of her poems.103 Yet, this is a manifestation of poetic, patriotic speech and not a form of authoritative expression. 98

Pl., Symp. 201D–212B. 206B “‘Ah, Diotima,’ I said; ‘in that case [if he knew the answer to her question, K.Z.] I should hardly be admiring you and your wisdom, and going to you to be instructed on just these questions (tau/ta maqhso,menoj)’ ”; compare 208BC: “On hearing this argument I wondered, and said: ‘Really, can this in truth be so, most wise Diotima?’ “Whereat she, like the accomplished sophists (w[sper oi` te,leoi sofistai,): ‘Be certain of it, Socrates […]’”. Transl. Lamb, modified. 100 Or of Socrates. On the persona speaking in Plato’s dialogues: COHN, “Does Socrates Speak for Plato?”, 485–500. 101 She could be a real person, as most of the characters in Plato’s dialogues. NUSSBAUM regards her a fictitious figure (“The Speech of Alcibiades”, in EAD., The Fragility of Goodness, 177). 102 Rightly, IRIGARAY, “Sorcerer Love”, 32, adding that “Diotima is not the only example of a woman whose wisdom, above all in love, is reported in her absence by a man.” The same is true for Aspasia, whose funeral oration in Menex. is also voiced by Socrates. 103 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 389: SEG 2, 263 = IG IX/2, 62 = SIG3 532, ca. 218 BCE – the decrees of Aetolian cities bestow on her citizenship and privileges common for proxenoi. 99

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

212

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

There are few records of women known for having taught others. Some accounts of women in philosophical (Epicurean, Cynic, Neopythagorean) circles are known, yet, there are hardly any about female philosophers teaching.104 Leontium, a member of the Epicurean Garden, is said to have written a treatise criticising Theophrast. Her representation in Cicero is highly ambivalent; she is referred to as an insolent meretricula, who, to be sure, challenged the philosopher in fine Attic style.105 Just as ambivalent is the confrontation between Hipparchia and the Theodorus the atheist; her whit is admitted, but she is a woman who breaks with traditional decency.106 It is difficult to know what the epigraphic references to women designated as philosophers mean. One such person is Magnilla, daughter of Magnus, wife of Menius, from Apollonia (Mysia), in the second or third century CE.107 Her father and husband are also (called) philosophers. Somewhat similar inscriptions are known from Greece; however, these use the adjective, often together with certain virtues, probably to refer to a lifestyle guided by philosophy, rather than to an occupation.108 The few Greek and Roman references to women designated as grammatica possibly indicate exceptional cases of female teachers.109 A quite late example of a learned and competent woman teaching philosophy is that of the Neoplatonist Hypatia of Alexandria (†415).110 The Suda suggests that she has taught philosophy openly, probably in virtue of a public position.111 Her intellectual and personal influence is most elo104 The Neopythagorean writings assigned to women are fictitious, and are largely meant to sustain women’s compliance with traditional roles. The discussion of Pythagorean philosophers by WAITHE, Ancient Women Philosophers, 11–40 is rather uncritical in what concerns our access to the historicity of these women and the genuineness of the sources attributed to them. 105 Cic., Nat. D. 1.93. On the representation of women in Epicurus’ entourage as hetaerae, serving the polemic against Epicureanism, and as part of the misrepresentation of Epicurean hedonism: P. GORDON, “Remembering the Garden”, esp. 224–230. 106 Diog. Laert. 7.96–98. 107 PLEKET, Epigraphica II, 30 = PH 289600. 108 IG V/1, 598 = PH 30961 (an Aurelia Oppia, daughter of the most philosophical Kallikrates, is referred to as filosofwta,th [just as her husband] and sw,fron), 599 = PH 30962 (a Herakleia, daughter of Teisamenos, wife of M. Aur. Eutychianus, semnota,th, filosofwta,th, euvgenesta,th, honoured for her virtue and wisdom); both from Sparta, Roman period; IG XII/5, 292 = PH 77514 (Aurelia Leite; she is also fi,landroj( filo,paidh and filo,patrij, and recognised for her wisdom; at Paros). The first is also mentioned by BARNES, “Ancient Philosophers”, 304. The Roman epitaph of an Euphrosyne, pia, instructed in the nine muses, philosopha, indicates at least a learned young woman (ILS 7783, also BARNES, 304). 109 Hermione (Egypt, 1st cent. CE, grammatikƝ), Volusia Tertullina (2nd/3rd cent., Caesarea, Mauritania, probably a grammatica), CRIBIORE, Gymnastics of the Mind, 78–79; AGUSTABOULAROT, “Autour d’une grammatica”, 319–330. 110 RIST, “Hypathia”, 214–225. 111 Quoted by RIST, “Hypathia”, 220.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

213

quently depicted by Synesius, bishop of Cyrene, probably her best known student. His epistles are a moving testimony of his respect and affection that did not diminish after his conversion to Christianity, notwithstanding his ecclesiastical career.112 In a letter to his brother he deplores the unfortunate conditions in Athens, once the city of eminent philosophers. He contrasts its current lack of thinkers to the privileged situation of Alexandria, which benefits from the wisdom of Hypatia.113 In his last two letters (from 413, the year of his death), he calls her “august Mistress”, “mother, sister, teacher and withal benefactress and whatsoever is honored in name and deed”.114 The church-historian Socrates records her contemporaries’ high regard for her knowledge and moral integrity, as well as the prejudices against such women; prejudices that, in this specific case, had tragic consequences.115 It is remarkable that up to Hypatia we have practically no unquestionable record of Greek women teaching. 3.4.2.3 Legendary and historical Roman women speaking in public Roman historians are slightly more tolerant about women speaking in public, as they have some elite women, at least from the legendary past, speaking up. Some authors regard even with certain sympathy female orators who show up in exceptional circumstances. The legendary events related to the Volscian attack on Rome and women’s intercession by Marcius Coriolanus, recounted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, have been addressed earlier in connection with the problem of female authority (ĺ3.4.1.3). The narrative is interesting for the issue of speech as well, not so much for its historical, but for its ideological thrust. Dionysius contrasts two female approaches to the crisis. The mass of Roman matrons acts irrationally, in a manner thought to be typical for women.116 The simple fact that women leave the house to offer suppli112

Synesius, Epistulae (ed. HERCHER, 638–739; ThLG search 2011.02.25). Engl. FITZGERALD (1926), online at http://www.livius.org/su-sz/synesius/synesius_letters.html (search 2011.02.25). 113 “Today Egypt has received and cherishes the fruitful wisdom of Hypatia. Athens used to be the dwelling place of the wise: today the beekeepers alone bring it honor.” (Ep. 136; from 396; transl. Fitzgerald). 114 de,spoina sebasmi,a (Ep. 10.2–3); mh/ter kai. avdelfh. kai. dida,skale kai. dia. pa,ntwn tou,twn euvergetikh. kai. pa/n o[ ti ti,mion kai. pra/gma kai. o;noma (Ep. 16.1–4). (ThLG search 2011.02.25). Compare Ep. 124.2–3 (from 401 or 411–412): “Even though ‘there shall be utter forgetfulness of the dead in Hades, even there shall I remember thee’, Hypatia my dear” (transl. Fitzgerald; Synesius quotes Hom., Il. 22.389). 115 Socr., Hist. eccl. 7.15, in ROWLANDSON, Women and Society, 74–75 (no. 54). 116 At the sight of danger, “abandoning the sense of propriety that kept them in the seclusion of their homes”, they run to the shrines, to lament and to desperately and loudly ask for divine protection. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.39.1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

214

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

cations, a practice otherwise widely attested and generally accepted, is described as an offence to decency (to. euvprepe,j). Their emotional attitude is contrasted to the high-minded intervention of Valeria, an elite woman,117 who mobilises the terrified women to remove the threat.118 She is thereby depicted as displaying male virtues.119 What is of interest here is that – whatever the historical truth – Dionysius stages a crowd of emotional women publicly addressed by an elite, rational matron, “quite capable of discreet judgement”.120 Valeria’s intervention by Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus, and women’s entreaties with Coriolanus will eventually be successful and Rome will be saved.121 The limits of this female public speech are obvious. Valeria addresses only women. The power of her speech is derived from divine inspiration and not from any office she would hold. Her discourse is backed by charismatic and not official authority.122 To be sure, Coriolanus’ mother, Veturia, acts in an even more uncommon way; in Dionysius’ version she speaks up in front of men (the Volscians and their generals),123 compelling her son to put an end to the siege of Rome. The story is remarkable, irrespective of its veridicity, as it shows that in Dionysius’ mind exceptional cases (commonly deep crises), can justify the public speech of (elite) women. Second, one notes the point to which public speech is again an expression of informal authority. Beyond this legendary account, a few records preserve the memory of women who have spoken in public as orators, pleading a common cause before political authorities, or defending their case in court. Such undertaking is most commonly reproved, or, if reluctantly accepted, is associated with manly conduct. Valerius Maximus recounts three women “whose natural condition and the modesty of the matron’s robe could not make them keep 117 “A matron distinguished in birth and rank”, “held in great honour and esteem” (do,xan ei=cen evn th/| po,lei kai. timh,n), sister of Publicola (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.39.2). His daughter in Plut., Mul. virt. 14, Mor. 250 B. 118 Dionysius’ account is instructive: “moved by some divine inspiration, took her stand upon the topmost step of the temple, and calling the rest of the women to her, first comforted and encouraged them, bidding them not to be alarmed at the danger that threatened. Then she assured them that there was just one hope of safety for the commonwealth and that this hope rested in them alone […]. Upon this one of them asked: ‘And what can we women do to save our country, when the men have given it up for lost? What strength so great do we weak and miserable women possess?’ ‘A strength,’ replied Valeria, ‘that calls, not for weapons or hands – for Nature has excused us from the use of these – but for goodwill and speech’.” Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.39.2–3 (transl. Carry; emphases added). 119 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.40.1,3. 120 fronh,sai ta. de,onta i`kanwta,th, 8.39.2. 121 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.39.4–5. Women will prevail over Coriolanus by their supplications, and the male hero will be moved, in a quasi-feminine manner, by the tears of his mother and wife. 122 See also 8.40.1: “she prayed to the gods to invest their plea with persuasion and charm”. 123 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.45.2–3, see also 46,2–3; 48.1–53.4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

215

silent in the Forum and the courts of law”.124 These are Maesia of Sentinum, Carfania, wife of senator Licinius Bucio, and Hortensia, daughter of the famous orator Quintus Hortensius Hortalus. The circumstances are different, yet in the end, all three stand for reprehensible or at least peculiar behaviour. Maesia boldly and successfully pleaded her own case in court and earned thereby the name of Androgyne, due to her manly spirit under female appearance.125 Her oratorical competence suggests that she probably belonged to the educated class.126 Even when she proved to be right in her cause, she is labelled as unfeminine by way of this doubtful epithet. Carfania is presented as the type of the litigating and shameless woman, whose repeated public pleadings in court manifest her impudentia. She is referred to as a barking dog and a monster, a species whose extinction is awaited.127 Hortensia pleaded the cause of wealthy women against the taxation imposed by the second triumvirate. Her speech, probably largely constructed, shows at any rate that such intervention is a challenge to public authority and an expression of power.128 Her assessment is by far the most positive. She speaks out when no man dares to provide matrons with legal representation and her plea will be effective. At any rate, Valerius regards Hortensia’s intervention as a pale reflection of her father’s eloquence. Her father lives forth in her and inspires her.129 Had Hortensius Hortalus’ male descendants followed their father, the great paternal legacy would not have been limited to the single performance of a woman, remarks Valerius with some sarcasm. Quintilian is less negative on the issue of female speech and adds other examples to that of Hortensia. His main point is that rhetorical skills of talented orators are largely due to educated parents of both sexes.130 However, the rhetorical training of women is exceptional. It is the privilege of 124 Val. Max. 8.3.praef. (transl. Shackleton Bailey). The name of the first two is sometimes differently transcribed: Amesia, and C. Afrania or Cafra, C. Afra. 125 “sub speciae feminae virilem animum gerebat”, Val. Max. 8.3.1. On Maesia of Sentinum see A. MARSHALL, “Roman Ladies on Trial”, 56–58. He takes the case to be historical, occurring probably in the 1st cent. BCE (possibly connected to the circumstances of the civil war, more closely the Umbrian revolt of 90 BCE in which Sentinum was involved), and suggests that Maesia, subject to a criminal procedure, defended her cause in court being bereft of male legal representation. 126 A. MARSHALL, “Roman Ladies”, 47, 53. 127 Val. Max. 8.3.2. 128 App., BCiv. 4.32–33. 129 “repraesentata enim patris facundia impetravit ut maior pars imperata pecuniae his remitteretur. Revixit tum muliebri stirpe Q. Hortensius verbisque filiae aspiravit.” (Val. Max. 8.3.3). 130 “As regards parents, I should like to see them as highly educated as possible, and I do not restrict this remark to fathers alone. We are told that the eloquence of the Gracchi owed much to their mother Cornelia, whose letters even to-day testify to the cultivation of her style. Laelia, the daughter of Gaius Laelius, is said to have reproduced the elegance of her father’s language in her own speech, while the oration delivered before the triumvirs by Hortensia, the daughter of Quintus Hortensius, is still read and not merely as a compliment to her sex.” Quint., Inst. 1.1.6 (transl. Butles).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

216

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

young men who prepare for a public, political and/or legal career. In some cases fathers, generally eminent orators, less frequently educated mothers are said to be able to pass on (rhetorical) competences to their daughters. To be sure, daughters’ rhetorical performance reflects their fathers’ eloquence and elegance of expression. Such is the case of Hortensia, Laelia, daughter of orator Gaius Laelius,131 and Tullia, Cicero’s daughter.132 3.4.2.4 Summary Public speech is a source and expression of authority. This association appears in virtually all accounts, whether fictitious or historical, that have women speaking in public. In the Greco-Roman world women are excluded from political speech and are thereby deprived of formal authority. The only accepted sphere where they may speak is that of religion and poetry. Otherwise, women speaking in public, teaching or pleading a cause are exceptional. Their representation is generally ambivalent. Speech is frequently associated with licence or with shallowness. In the best case eloquence is attributed to paternal education. Female philosophers and teachers of philosophy are exceptional. Some are (almost) legendary characters, whose real role and speech is inaccessible to historical investigation (Themistoclea, Aspasia, Diotima, the Pythagorean women). The only certain case, that of Hypatia, is very late. Her fate of this remarkable person is emblematic for ancient antipathy against women who acquire authority through their education, teaching and public presence. 3.4.3 Conclusion The exhortations and prohibitions addressed to women in 1 Tim 2,9–15 are focused on the issue of authority and on women’s exclusion thereof. Women are demanded to embrace virtues expressing self-effacement, they are commanded to keep silent and be submissive and they are outrightly forbidden to teach and to exert authority over men. For these reasons this chapter has

131

Also in Cic., Brut. 211 “We have often heard the speech (sermo) of Laelia, daughter of [the distinguished orator] Gaius Laelius: thus we have seen that she has been imbued with her father’s elegance (patris elegantia), as well as her two daughters named Muciae, whose conversation is known to me” (transl. Hendrickson). 132 Cic., QFr 1.3.3: “qua pietate, qua modestia, quo ingenio! effigiem oris, sermonis, animi mei”. On Tullia’s abilities: TREGGIARI, Terentia, 55, 62, 84. On daughters’ talents reflecting the qualities of their father: HALLETT, Fathers and Daughters, 338–340 (Tullia, Laelia and Agrippina Maior).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Gender, authority and public speech

217

addressed the cultural context of these prohibitions, focusing on the issue of female (deprivation of) authority and exclusion from public speech. (1) Because of their natural inferiority, women are subordinated to men. The view that women lack authority pervades ancient mentality. A reversal of these relations of power is inconceivable under normal circumstances. Any situation where a woman holds authority is highly reprehensible, except for cases when male authority is temporarily absent and the community is in danger. (2) Public speech is a source and manifestation of authority. Women are excluded from the exercise of political speech. Except for the sphere of religion and poetry, women are not permitted to speak in public. Very few cases of women speaking in public are known. Some women trained in philosophy and/or rhetoric are recorded as having taught individual males or, more rarely, a male audience. Even these very few women are almost inaccessible to historical investigation. Others are known to have defended various cases in public. Their depiction is most often negative (they are licentious or unfeminine). The normal condition of a modest woman seems almost incompatible with public speech. The right to speak in public is commonly denied because it is a manifestation of authority. These views survive in a broad number of literary sources, in a variety of genres, from the Greek classical epoch up to the Roman imperial period, throughout the Mediterranean world. Their endurance makes it understandable that at least on the level of conventions and ideology, women’s public role (including public speech) is seen to be incongruous with decorum. These mentalities explain why the Pastorals exclude them from public roles, foremost from teaching – a form of authoritative public speech.

3.5 Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles In Greco-Roman antiquity (male) gender is a major condition of legitimate teaching, mainly because teaching is a form of authoritative speech, frequently implying public visibility. As extensively shown, authority and public speech are prerogatives of men. Women are expected to keep silent, to submit to male authority and remain concealed. Women speaking in public are exceptional and their treatment in ancient sources is at best ambivalent. Since 1 Tim 2,11–12 defines men as teachers and women as learners, I will explore the ancient topos of the man as teacher of the woman, expressing the idea of male superiority (ĺ3.5.1). Subsequently I will discuss in more detail the connection between teaching, authority and gender in 1 Tim 2,11– 14. The premise underlying the discussion is that the prohibition refers to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

218

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

public teaching that encompasses instruction on Christian doctrine in a community setting, mainly in the context of worship.1 I shall argue that women are prohibited to teach because the practice would imply an exertion of authority and the reversal of normal conditions in which men, due to their superiority, rule and teach women (ĺ3.5.2). The legitimation of this prohibition from Genesis is based on the same logic – the arguments from priority in creation and from the fall buttress male superiority and authority. Women are presented as inferior and intrinsically liable to deception and sin, and therefore unqualified for teaching (sound) doctrine with the required authority (ĺ3.5.3–4). In a following chapter I will address other factors that may have led to women’s exclusion from public religious roles and teaching, namely: the shrinkage of the ritual dimension of worship, the demise of inspired speech to the advantage of teaching doctrinal contents, the supposed Jewish influence and the possible impact of Roman mentality and law (ĺ4.3.4). Some authors claim that the exclusion from teaching was partly meant to counter emancipatory trends that occurred in the church under the influence of similar trends in Roman society during the first century CE; these allegedly had a negative impact on the order of the Pauline communities and on their social prestige.2 This view will not be defended here. Such approach takes at face value ideologically coloured ancient sources that deplore the loss of a legendary golden age when women were obedient, domestic and chaste, in contrast to their contemporary peers who were immoral and domineering. Thus ideology and poetry are taken as hard facts. On the other hand, the public roles of women in Asia Minor as early as the Hellenistic period (ĺ4.2.2–4) question the supposition that an unprecedented “emancipation” occurred under Roman influence, which has been paired with (or viewed as a sign of) the moral decay that contributed to Christian women taking or abusing leadership positions in the church.3 1 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 135, 137–138; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 91–92; H. MARSHALL, PE, 455 (“conveying authoritative instruction in a congregational setting”); FIORE, PE, 66–67 (the task of the bishop / presbyter); MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 288í291 (teaching carried out by the episkopos, as kalo.n e;rgon, denied to women); her entire discussion of 1 Tim 2,11–15 is based on this understanding of teaching. Pace HOLMES, Text, 90í97 passim, who rejects the congregational context, and assumes that dida,skein would be a general, continuous “instruction”; a “nagging” of men by women, not teaching proper in the community. 2 WINTER’s main thesis in Roman Wives, closely followed by TOWNER, Letters, 48, 196, 219, passim. Somewhat similarly, FIORE, PE, 57: “the extreme behavior encouraged (e.g., asceticism, 1 Tim 4:3) or tolerated (emancipation of slaves, 1 Tim 6:1–2, and of women, 1 Tim 2:11–15; 5:8, 11–13), the disturbance caused within the community by heterodox teaching […], and the danger to the moral fabric of the community (e.g., 1 Tim 1:9–10; 6:3–5, 9–10; 2 Tim 3:2–5; Titus 1:15– 16) could be a cause for the low esteem for and even prejudice against the church.” 3 Pace WINTER, Roman Wives, 21–38, passim; TOWNER, Letters, 48–49. As shown by SPÄTH, the issue of Roman female emancipation has been largely exaggerated (“Frauenmacht”, 163–169).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

219

A puzzling question is that of the success that such restrictive regulations may or may not have had.4 The second century Acts of Paul and Thecla reflect a community that appeals to the authority of Paul (just as the Pastorals do) to defend an ascetic lifestyle, thereby subtlely polemicising against the PE. This writing reflects in more positive terms the role of women in the church, including teaching. This may well suggest that communities with such a profile still existed one or two generations later and they produced their own apologetic literature that stood in direct opposition to the PE. Nevertheless, one should not minimise the effect of the regulations issued by the Pastorals, since other early Christian sources, from Tertullian onward5 will reinforce women’s exclusion from teaching, a position that will eventually prevail in the church. 3.5.1 The man as teacher of the woman One of the common topoi in ancient literature envisages men as teachers of women, more specifically, husbands as teachers of their wives. As teaching and authority are intimately related, this topos confirms male authority. In a teacher-learner relationship being a teacher involves authority as a matter of course. Gender additionally shapes this relationship, since the man is supposed to be by nature the ruler and teacher of the woman. Assigning to the woman the role of teacher and implicitly conveying her authority leads to the reversal of the relationship between natural ruler and natural subject, between teacher and persons who normally need instruction. Consequently, such practice is against nature, illegitimate and unseemly. The topos results from the marriage patterns of the Greco-Roman world, from the common experience of Greek and Roman families that entailed a marked disparity of age and education in favour of men. In addition, ideology assigned a very limited role to women in educating their children. Conversely, the man had an eminent responsibility, not only with respect to his children, but also with regard to his wife. This made the man the educator par excellence. In the Greek and Roman world women commonly married shortly after puberty to much older and often better educated men. In Athens girls were expected to be married in their early teens, while men commonly married around thirty.6 In Rome, conditions 4

A point I owe to Joseph VERHEYDEN. De bapt. 17.5, in response to the APTh. 6 Compare Hes., Op. 695. See LACEY, Family, 105–107; POMEROY, Families, 5–6. Betrothals of girls are known at age 5–7. Arist., Pol. 7.14.6, 1335A establishes that the appropriate age at marriage is 18 for women, 37 or a little younger for men. 5

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

220

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

were similar, at least for elite women’s first marriage. From the end of the Republic onward custom and law set girls’ lower age at marriage at 12.7 Upper-class women married early, frequently around fourteen-fifteen, those of lower status some years later. It was not uncommon for men in their late twenties or early thirties to marry girls about half their age. In subsequent marriages men in their forties or older often married much younger girls.8 Augustan legislation contributed to the decrease of the age gap, as it encouraged elite men to marry early, but this only proves how common age disparity was.

Age disparity resulted in significant inequality in education. For men, at least for those from the upper classes, education quite commonly included all three levels of instruction (elementary education, grammatics and rhetorics). Women were far more disadvantaged. During the classical period, Greek girls were given some basic education by their parents, but that essentially aimed at enabling them to fulfil their household tasks. 9 In Asia Minor, the situation was only slightly better. For the Hellenistic and Roman period, at least for certain towns, there is some evidence that girls could attend school.10 7

For age at marriage in Roman legislation and custom: TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 39–43 (12 for girls, the mid teens as lowest age for boys), 398–403 (in the social strata that could afford epitaphs men usually married in their late twenties or early thirties, while women from better-off families after 15). The average age-gap at first marriage was around a decade, while in the case of men at their second marriage and beyond, to girls first married, the disparity was more important. Treggiari cites the case of Pompey and Julia, Cicero and Publilia, Pliny and Calpurnia. The Augustan legislation lowered the age by which upper-class men had to be fathers to 25. On women’s very young age at their first marriage in Roman practice: KUNST, “Eheallianzen”, 32–52, 36–37; CLARK, “Roman Women”, 200–201; HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 9, 21, 28–29. For a nuanced discussion: CASTELLI, “Gender, Theory”, 243–244. 8 Remarriage after divorce also contributed to age disparity. Yet, the exceedingly high rate of divorce, postulated by certain scholars based on the uncritical reading of ancient sources (e.g. WINTER, Roman wives, 48) is rightly challenged by SPÄTH, “Frauenmancht”, 170–175; cf. also TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 473–482. As Späth remarks, the assumption of an increasing rate of divorce among elites (thought to be a sign of the moral decay of Roman society and of female emancipation) overlooks the fact that for upper-classes marriage essentially aimed at establishing political alliances and producing legitimate offspring. One should not read into Roman habits modern understandings of marriage. Remarriage after divorce or the death of the spouse envisaged precisely these aims of marriage. The very high rate of maternal mortality was another common cause of remarriage. On the complexity of family relations due to early parental mortality: OSIEK, M. MACDONALD, A Woman’s Place, 19–20. 9 As suggested e.g. by Socrates’ question in Xen., Oec. 7.4. Isomachus’ wife is literate (7.36 with 9.10), but she is the wife of a man from the Athenian elite, supposedly of a well-to-do family herself. The view that women should be educated enough to manage the household is reflected by Theophrastus (Stob. 2.31.10–14). See also HARRIS, Ancient literacy, 107, n. 186. For classical Athens there is no evidence for girls attending school (HARRIS, 103, mentioning the negative impact of social seclusion and of young age at marriage). He notes that ancient representations of women holding writing-tablets or book-rolls should not always be taken as suggestive of female literacy, as some images represent Muses or Sappho, while others, in erotic contexts, are probably indicative of hetaerae, not of Greek high-standing women (107). 10 Girls’ school attendance is attested in Teos, Pergamon, and probably Smyrna, in the Hellenistic period, and in Xanthus (Lycia), in the Roman era. See MARROU, Histoire de l’éducation, 149, 203,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

221

Daughters of well-to-do parents certainly received a better instruction, compared to those from less fortunate families, but the discrepancy between boys’ and girls’ education was comparable.11 Literacy of upper-class women in the Hellenistic world was not uncommon,12 but it was far less frequent in the lower strata. To be sure, Marrou was too optimistic about girls’ equal chances to study at elementary and secondary level.13 In Rome, even when daughters received an elementary education, their studies very often stopped here, or at the best included grammar studies as well. Rhetorical-philosophical training that prepared men for public careers was totally uncommon for women.14 As men were more mature and experienced and considerably more educated, they unavoidably became and were seen as the educators of their wives. Conditions certainly were somewhat different for women in their subsequent marriages, in which they entered with more maturity and experience and sometimes having acquired more education. On the other hand, in the lowest strata, education was deficient in men and women alike. However, as a rule, cf. 160, noting coeducation as a rule at Teos, and the function of the supervisor evpi. th/j euvkosmi,aj tw/n partqe,nwon, at Pergamon and Smyrna); HARRIS, Ancient literacy, 132–133, 136–137, 239–240, 244 (the foundation of Opramoas, in the 2nd cent. CE); POMEROY, “Techikai kai Mousikai”, 52; EAD., “Charities”, 117. In the school charter from Teos girls are mentioned as recipients of donations alongside boys (the beneficiaries of the generous donation of Polythrous, SIG3 578, ll. 9–10 = PH 256430). The three teachers paid from this donation are grammatodidaskaloi. 11 HARRIS, Ancient Literacy, 239–240. 12 POMEROY, Goddesses, 136–139. 13 Rightly critical: HARRIS, Ancient Literacy, 137. He notes that even where evidence exists for girls attending school, this should not obscure “the practical certainty that almost everywhere male pupils vastly outnumbered female ones. The proportion of girls in the Roman Empire as a whole who ever attended a school can never have been more than very small” (239–240). He situates women’s literacy before 100 BCE at around 10% in the Hellenistic East and under 5% in the Western provinces around 79 CE (p. 329–330). 14 Roman women’s possibilities to achieve education are extensively discussed by HEMELRIJK, Matrona Docta, 17–41; also VAN DEN BERGH, “The Role of Education”, 351–364; HARRIS, Ancient Literacy, 239 (referring to Mart. 8.3.15–16; 9.68.1–2; Val. Max. 6.13, Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 11.28.3; CIL VI, 2210 and 6327; the three latter possibly cases of private instruction). The first evidence for Roman girls receiving education in school or at home comes from the late Republic. Very few women studied rhetorics and philosophy; these were mostly members of the imperial family and other upper-class women (HEMELRIJK, 18–21). Such was Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi (2nd cent. BCE), whose instruction included, if we are to give credit to the sources, Greek grammatical education and elements of Latin rhetorics, or Hortensia, daughter of the orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus (HEMELRIJK, 24–25, 233, n. 38; cf. Quint., Inst. 1.1.6; Val. Max., 8.3.3). (On Hortensia ĺ3.4.2, 4.3.3). Eurydice, the bride addressed by Plutarch in his Advice is said to have studied philosophy, partly under his supervision (48; Mor. 145C–146A; see also POMEROY, “Reflections on Plutarch”, 35. According to the story of the unfortunate daughter of the plebeian Lucius Verginius, Verginia attends school (Dion. Hal. 11.28.1–6), while being at marriagable age and already betrothed (probably 15, cf. 11.30.2). The story (projected into the period of the decemvirate) reflects Dinoysius’ view that girls may attend public school, even when not from an aristocratic family.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

222

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

the marital and educational circumstances were such as to provide men with the role of the instructor. Age disparity and marriage to a girl in her prime secured the malleability, docility and teachability of the wife.15 The “curriculum” included above all a wife’s duties in the household. An extensive part of Xenophon’s Oeconomicus deals with the matter.16 (The translation of this work by Cicero enhanced its impact on Roman readers,17 contributing to the perpetuation of the topos of the husband as instructor of his wife.) Socrates asks Isomachus whether he himself has trained his wife (su. evpai,deusaj th.n gunai/ka w[ste ei=nai oi[an dei/;), or if she was already prepared by her parents to perform her duties in the household.18 Isomachus, who has married her when she was hardly fifteen, turns out to be the excellent teacher of his wife.19 As a result, she will perform her duties even in the absence of the husband, who will dedicate himself to public affairs. The sacred rites performed by the couple before Isomachus starts the training of his wife transform this instruction into a religious act, confirmed by her pledge to perform her duties.20 The topic is also addressed in lesser detail in book 3. Socrates argues that men are largely responsible for their wives’ success or failure in managing the estate. A wife that manages the oikos wrongly can be blamed if she has been taught by her husband, but “if he doesn’t teach her what is right and good and then discovers that she has no knowledge of these qualities, wouldn’t it be proper to blame the husband?”21 15 Already in Hesiod we read: “Bring home a wife to your house when you are of the right age, while you are not far short of thirty years nor much above; this is the right age for marriage. […] Marry a maiden, so that you can teach her careful ways (parqenikh.n de. gamei/n( w[j k v h;qea kedna. dida,xh|j). Op. 695–701, esp. 699. Plutarch notes the difference between Spartan legislation that connected age at marriage with biological maturity, and Roman law that provided for earlier marriage to secure the bride’s chastity and malleability (Comp. Num. Lyc. 4). For the principle of young women being moulded by the husband see also Callicrat., De dom. felic., THESLEFF, 107,9–11. The disadvantage of marrying a widow compared to a virgin, says Apuleius, is that she is “minime docilis” (Apol. 92, cf. TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 473). 16 Xen., Oec. 1.2–4 describes oivkonomi,a as an evpisth,mh, a “science” or branch of knowledge, similar to medicine, smithing and carpentry. 17 Off. 2.87; cf. POMEROY, Oikonomikos, 71: “In a period of civil war and sexual freedom, Xenophon’s text appealed to Roman nostalgia for ‘the good old days’ when marriage was a natural union in which mothers were honoured and actively involved in educating their children, and wives were happy to be rewarded for thrift, industry, and chastity.” [with the proviso that women were supposed to nurture their children, not to educate them properly speaking; ĺ3.6.2.6]. 18 Xen., Oec. 7.4. 19 Compare the case of Critoboulos’ wife (Oec. 3,13): “And you had married her when she was a very young child who had seen and heard virtually nothing of the world? […] Wouldn’t it be much more remarkable if she had any knowledge at all about what she ought to say or do than if she made mistakes?” (transl. Pomeroy) 20 Xen., Oec. 7.7–8. 21 th/j de. gunaiko,j( eiv me.n didaskome,nh u`po. tou/ avndro.j tavgaqa. kakopoiei/( i;soj dikai,wj a;n h` gunh. th.n aivti,an e;coi\ eiv de. mh. dida,skon ta. kala. kavgaqa. avnepisth,moni tou,twn crw/|to( a=p’ ouv

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

223

The pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica adds that the husband should also prepare his wife to be a good mother of his children:22 “his wife’s training (ad uxoris doctrinam) should be the object of a man’s unstinting care; that so far as is possible their children may spring from the noblest of stock.”23 Under such circumstances it is conspicuous that in the Ecclesiazusae, Aristophanes presents a world turned upside down, where a woman teaches her husband and his friend the matters of political management.24 Household management is not the only “subject” to be taught by a husband. He should also train his wife in virtues,25 and should even introduce her to moral-philosophical principles and some sort of intellectual knowledge. Plutarch notes that the man is the teacher of his wife in virtue through his personal example, his guidance and by means of intellectual training. It is through him that the woman will be taught orderliness or licentiousness in the bedroom, described as school (didaskalei/wn euvtaxi,aj h' avkolasi,aj).26 Obvioulsy, the exhortation is not about sexual practices, but it addresses the virtues or vices associated with marital life. Even moderation in lifestyle and adornment has to be taught to a wife by means of reasoning/words (lo,goj)27 and of exemplary behaviour.28 Personal example, both negative and positive, is a form of teaching.29 dikai,wj a;n o` avnh.r th.n aivti,an e;coi* (Oec. 3.11–15; transl. Pomeroy). Socrates argues for men teaching their wives in Xen., Symp. 2.9 as well (in 2.10 Antisthenes asks him about his failure to teach Xanthippe). Philodemus will criticise Xenophon’s claim that a wife was supposed to manage the household, that she was able to learn her duties and that the husband was responsible for his wife’s abilities (P) oivkonomi,aj 2.4, in POMEROY, Oikonomikos, 70). 22 [Arist.], Oec. 3.2.12–15. 23 “Propter quae enim nihil decet omittere ad uxoris doctrinam, ut iuxta posse quasi ex optimis liberos valeant procreare. Etenim agricola nihil omittit studendo, ut ad optimam terram et maxime bene cultam semen consumere, expectans ita optimum sibi fructum fieri [...]”. [Arist.], Oec. 3.2. 24 Eccl. 662. The topic of teaching is explicit: Praxagora’s proposal for political reforms is approved by Chremes with: eu= ge dida,skei. Praxagora’s views on managing the public affairs derive from her experience in household management. Athens has to become a single household (to. mi,an oi;khsin poih,sein), and even the community of possessions is modelled according to the economic unity of the oikos (Eccl. 674). In comedy a woman teaches her husband political matters drawing from her domestic expertise, a multiple reversal of the regular situation, where women are to be taught, to be ruled, and are confined to the private sphere. 25 “[…] if the husband learns first to master himself, he will thereby become his wife’s best guide in all the affairs of life, and will teach her to follow his example (“optimus totius vitae rector existet et uxorem talibus uti docet” [Arist.], Oec. 3.3. Drama voices a similar view. Peleus argues that Spartan men have failed to teach their wives to be sw,fronaj, a failure resulting in their licenciousness. Eur., Androm. 595–604 (esp. 600–601); see MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 188. 26 Conj. praec. 47, Mor. 144F. 27 Conj. praec. 12, Mor. 139B 28 Thus a woman can be expected to avoid extravagance (polute,leia) only if the man is able to do so (Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145B). See also POMEROY, “Reflections on Plutarch, 30. 29 “A man fond of his personal appearance (filosw,matoj) makes a wife all paint; one fond of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

224

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

Teaching decorum to his wife is a man’s task, all the more so if he happens to be the emperor. Pliny the Younger depicts Trajan as the chief architect of Plotina’s virtues, of her unassuming lifestyle and of her very obedience: “This is the work of her husband who has fashioned and formed her habits; there is glory enough for a wife in obedience”.30 The training of the wife has an intellectual dimension as well. After encouraging Pollianus to study philosophy to improve his character, Plutarch shows that a woman should also study geometry, philosophy (Plato or Xenophon) and astronomy.31 This is certainly not a definite curriculum, but exemplifies the practical use of theoretical knowledge. Such study results in the virtuous life growing deeper and it counters superstition and credulity.32 Study involves instruction provided by the husband (the context that twice emphasises his role in teaching his wife).33 A woman should appreciate her husband as her instructor and philosopher and teacher of the most eminent and divine matters (kaqhghth.j kai. filo,sofoj kai. dida,skaloj tw/n kalli,stwn kai. qeiota,twn).34 Teacher-husbands and disciple-wives are not uncommon in philosophic tradition, as suggested by couples like Pythagoras and Theano, or Crates and Hipparchia.35 In three of the pseudonymous epistles by Crates to Hipparchia he instructs his wife on various matters of behaviour and the essentials of Cynic philosophy and lifestyle, and in one of them he explicitly speaks of her having learned from her husband.36 Roman sources confirm the role of the husband in the intellectual training of his wife. In a letter to Erucinus, Pliny the Younger praises his friend, Saturninus, a successful poet himself, for the excellent style of his wife’s letters, a merit due to the training provided by her husband.37 Pliny also records pleasure (filh,donoj) makes her meretricious (e`tairikh,) and licentious (avko,laston), while a husband who loves what is good and honourable (fila,gaqoj kai. filo,kaloj) makes a wife chaste, selfcontrolled (sw,frona) and sober/respectable (kosmi,an).” Conj. praec. 17, Mor. 140C. 30 Plin., Paneg. 83.8 (“Mariti hoc opus, qui ita imbuit ita instituit; nam uxori sufficit obsequi gloria”). Emphases added. See the discussion in ROCHE, “Public Image”, 49. 31 Conj. praec. 48, Mor.145B. 32 Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145B. Plutarch implies here that women, especially when uneducated, are prone to such vices. 33 See also HAWLEY, “Practicing What You Preach”, 124. 34 Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145B. 35 On Hipparchia, disciple and wife of Crates: Diog. Laert. 6.96–98; RIST, Stoic Philosophy, 61–62; HAWLEY, “Practicing What You Preach”, 124. 36 MALHERBE, Cynic Epistles, Ep. 28–31, 33; for the latter aspect: Ep. 30. 37 Ep. 1.16.6 (“Legit mihi nuper epistulas; uxoris esse dicebat. Plautum vel Terentium metro solutum legi credidi. Quae sive uxoris sunt ut affirmat, sive ipsius ut negat, pari gloria dignus, qui aut illa componat, aut uxorem quam virginem accepit, tam doctam politamque reddiderit”). See the discussion by HEMELRIJK, Matrona Docta, 31–32; KUNST, “Eheallianzen”, 40, 46–47.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

225

the enthusiasm with which Calpurnia, his wife reads his writings and learns them by heart.38 As Hemelrijk remarks, by passing under silence the education these upper-class girls have received in their family and attributing all their knowledge to their husbands’ instruction, Pliny uses the example of these intellectually endowed women to emphasise their subordinate status of learners and the superiority of the teacher-husband.39 Teaching and ruling are two interconnected male attributions in the household. The Neopythagorean Callicratidas asserts: The husband should be his wife’s regulator, master and preceptor (evpi,tropon kai. ku,rion evpista,tan ta/j au`tw/ gunaiko.j). Regulator, in paying diligent attention to his wife’s affairs; master, in governing, and exercising authority over her, and preceptor in teaching her such things as are fitting for her to know (dida,skaloi de. tw/| dida,skein ta. de,onta). This will be specially effected by him who, directing his attention to worthy parents, from their family marries a virgin in the flower of her youth. Such virgins are easily fashioned and docile; and are naturally well disposed to be instructed by (to. maqe.n euvfuw/j e;conti), and to fear and love their husbands.40

A similar view will be articulated by Aelius Aristides: the man teaches and rules his wife, as the superior the inferior; he speaks, whereas she should be content to listen.41 To sum up, the topos presents the man as the teacher of his wife in all matters: household management, maternal duties, morals, philosophy and literature; due to his male superiority, his age and his education. The texts discussed here do represent reality to some extent, given the social conditions resulting from marriage patterns and from women’s deficient education. Whether men were indeed so much involved in training their wives, espe38 Ep. 4, 19, addressed to Calpurnia Hispulla, the aunt of his wife. HEMELRIJK, Matrona Docta, 32–36, noting that the literary achievement of these women presupposed a previous education. 39 Some credit should be given to Pliny, who acknowledges the role of Calpurnia Hispulla in shaping his wife: “Nec aliud decet tuis manibus educatam, tuis praeceptis institutam, quae nihil in contubernio tuo viderit, nisi sanctum honestumque, quae denique amare me ex tua praedicatione consueverit” (“nor would any other feelings be suitable for one brought up by your hands and trained in your precepts, who has seen only what was pure and moral in your company and learned to love me on your recommendation?”; Ep. 4, 19.6, transl. Radice). Whether her education includes literary instruction or only training in virtues, is difficult to tell. Probably the emphasis is on the latter. 40 De dom. felic., THESLEFF, 107,4–11; GUTHRIE, 236–237. 41 Ael. Ar., Or. 2.128–130 (Dindorf 45, 41) (polla. [)))] o` avnh.r lege,tw( gunh. de. o-ij a'n avkou,sh caire,tw) [)))] ouv ga.r dh, pou th/j ge gunaiko.j avkou/sai perime,nwn( ei=tV evrei/ pro.j th.n gunai/ka auvto.j ti. dei/ poiei/n: ouvdV w`j evke,leuen ~Hsi,odoj i[na h;qea kedna. dida,xe( toi/j evkei,nhj lo,goij avkolouqw/n) avllV ei;per dida,xei( prosta,xei: eiv de. prosta,xei( th/j e`autou/ fu,sewj evggu,tata a;xei th.n gunai/ka( w`j avmei,nwn cei,rona) [)))] qeo.j me.n avnqrw,pou( a;rcwn dV ivdiw,tou( despo,thj dV oivke,tou( gunaiko.j dV avnh.r krei,ttwn kai. telew,teroj). VAN DER HORST notes the similarities with 1 Tim 2,10–14 (Aelius Aristides, 68)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

226

cially in philosophy and literature, is another question. What matters, however, is that by teaching his wife a man confirms his authority over her. Women teaching men reverse this normal relationship. Such a situation is difficult to conceive and is quite reprehensible. 3.5.2 Women’s exclusion from authority and teaching in 1 Tim 2,11–14 As shown earlier, the limitation of authority is a central issue in the exhorttation addressed to women (1 Tim 2,9–15) and it matches contemporary conventions concerning authority, public speech and teaching. In this chapter I will focus on the prohibition to teach as a restriction of women’s authority in the ekklƝsia. Women are demanded to keep silent and to submit to male authority and they are forbidden to teach and to exert authority over men. 3.5.2.1 vEn h`suci,a| Imposing silence is the first step to limiting authority. The meaning of evn h`suci,a| is debated, as h`suci,a may have a broader sense, referring to a quiet, peaceful, reverent attitude (in this context probably toward the teacher), or the more specific connotation of keeping silent.42 Some authors would opt for a broader understanding, suggesting tranquillity and acquiescence,43 and argue that this condition does not prevent women from speaking44 or from praying or prophesying.45 Others regard “silence” as the likelier meaning,46 additionally emphasising women’s compliance with the teaching exposed by church leaders,47 as well as their subordination (especially in light of 2,2), which connects a quiet life with deference to authorities.48 These aspects of h`suci,a, such as subjection to the official (male) teacher, submission to legitimate authorities in the church and a quiet demeanour, are all clearly intended by the author. However, given the centrality of teaching in the passage and women’s explicit prohibition from teaching, it is hard to imagine that the exhortation to h`suci,a would not imply silence. Dida,skein de. gunaiki. ouvk evpitre,pw demands the more narrow meaning of keeping silent as well. At 42

LSJ and BDB, s.v. h`suci,a. WAGENER, Ordnung, 99; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 68. MOUNCE, PE, 118–119; HOLMES, Text in a Whirlwind, 76–77. 45 H. MARSHALL, PE, 453; TOWNER, Letters, 214–215. 46 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 135–138; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 91–95, also stressing the passivity demanded from women: they are to keep silent and learn, while men are to teach. 47 DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 47; MOO, “What Does It Mean”, 179 (they should “accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders”). 48 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 279–282, interpreting silence as adornment (Schmuck) and good deed. 43 44

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

227

any rate h`suci,a, expected from women, both as quiet demeanour and as silence, indicates their subordinate status. As Spicq has remarked, silence is the expression of an inferior condition.49 This condition is only made explicit by the subsequent evn pa,sh| u`potagh/|. 3.5.2.2 vEn pa,sh| u`potagh/| As noted earlier, submission is a key-word in the PE (ĺ2.7.3) describing women’s attitude toward their husband (Tit 2,5), children’s position toward their father (1 Tim 3,4), slaves’ obedience to their masters (Tit 2,9) and the deference of the community toward civil authorities (Tit 3,1).50 What links these texts together is the hierarchical understanding of oikos, polis and ekklƝsia (ĺ2; 3.5). Against this background it becomes obvious that submission in the context of public worship characterises women’s manner of learning and implies their subordinate status vis-à-vis men in the community, who are the superior sex and holders of legitimate authority. It has been debated whether women are expected to submit to all men in the community,51 or only to the legitimate leaders and teachers. This way of asking the question may suggest a wrong alternative. The station codes make it clear that in the household a woman has to submit to her own husband. The issue here is that of relationships in the community, with particular attention given to teaching as an expression of authority, but these relations are defined with contemporary social expectations in mind. Therefore in this very context evn pa,sh| u`potagh/| requires women to recognise that just as they are to submit to their male kyrios (husband, father or other relevant male kin) in the household, they are to show the same deference and submission to male authority in the ekklƝsia. Firstly, they are to accept with reverence the superior position of the instituted male teachers and the teaching they proffer. Secondly, in a different manner though, they are to accept their subordinate position with respect to men in general, precisely by abstaining from public teaching that would situate them in a position of authority over men. The issue of authority is made obvious through the negative or indirect requirements as well: women are to submit, to preserve a reverential quietness and compliance, to keep silent in the community (actually in the same way as they are to behave at home), and they may clearly not exert any form of authority in the community. The generic gunh, and avnh,r, just as the reference to the typical Adam and Eve, show that the author envisages here the issue of 49

SPICQ, Épîtres I, 391. MG, s.v. u`potagh, and u`pota,ssw. Compare 1 Cor 14,34; Eph 5,24; Col 3,18; 1 Pet 2,18; 3,1.5. 51 A supposition rejected by MOUNCE, PE, 124. 50

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

228

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

gender relationships and roles as such. Therefore submission does not concern only wives’ relation to their husbands or only female faithful’s acceptance of the teaching exposed by male teachers, nor does the prohibition solely concern the case of illegitimate authority. Rather, it is much more a matter of principle in (Christian) society.52 3.5.2.3 Auvqente,w The issue of authority is made explicit by the use of auvqente,w.53 Much has been made of the positive or negative connotation of this NT hapax,54 of whether the use or abuse of authority is proscribed.55 (An alternative translation, “to represent herself as the originator of man”, proposed by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, is more difficult to defend.56) If the meaning is 52

Rightly OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 97, following DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 194. The text is well established. Only two minuscules (522, 2344) support the v.l. avqetei/n (to set aside, nullify), cf. K. ELLIOTT, Greek Text, 42–43, suggesting a misreading (we may add a mishearing) or a shortening of the verb. (Thayer s.v. [cf. BibleWorks] notes the frequency of avqete,w in the LXX, but it would require an Acc.) For auvqente,w LSJ suggests to have full power over, LouwNida s.v. [cf. BibleWorks] to control in a domineering way; UBS [cf. BibleWorks]: domineer, have authority over. Thayer [cf. BibleWorks] proposes as etymology the contraction from auvtoe,nthj, the latter from auvto,j and e;ntea, arms (or e[nthj, cf. Hesychius); on this etymological bases Thayer adds an earlier usage: “one who with his own hand kills either others or himself”; “in later Greek writings one who does a thing himself, the author (Plb. 23.14.2, etc.); one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to auvtokra,twr an absolute master); to govern one, exercise dominion over one: tino,j 1 Tim 2:12”. Friberg s.v. [cf. BibleWorks]: “strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1Tim 2,12)”. CHANTRAINE derives the cognate auvqe,nthj (“auteur responsable, notamment auteur responsable d’un meurtre”) from auvto,j (“par soimême, de sa propre initiative”) and e[nthj (“qui achève, realise”), and translates auvqente,w with “avoir pleine authorité sur”. Nevertheless he assigns the meaning “qui est cause de”, “maître” to a later date, compared to that of the first meaning (Dictionnaire étymologique, s.v. auvqe,nthj). 54 Auvqe,nthj occurs once in the LXX, in Wis 12,6 (auvqe,ntaj gonei/j), referring to parents who kill with their own hands. 3 Macc 2,29 has auvqenti,a, as a restriction of status or rights (eivj th.n prosunestalme,nhn auvqenti,an), thus possibly implying a manifestation of authority, although the noun means here status rather than authority. 55 The debate opposes evangelical hierarchalists and equalitarians, and as such is beyond the interest of this study. Yet very often my own understanding of the text, the syntax and the authorial intention will come closer to that of the first group, even when the premises (regarding authorship, or the understanding of inspiration), as well as the conclusions concerning the relevance of the text are very different. 56 I Suffer Not, 103, 113. The proposal is based on rather strange associations between the different meanings of the auvqent- word group over a very broad interval of time (murder in sexual contexts, creator, originator), the ritual castration of the Artemis-priests, Jewish and Christian texts about the woman causing the death of man (that do not use the word), the alleged cultic prostitution in mystery religions, in particular the cult of Artemis, the association between knowledge and sexual practices, the emphasis on the role of Eve in the Gnosis, and the cult of fertility- and mothergoddesses in Asia Minor (93–98, 105–112, passim). It would take too long to discuss some 53

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

229

negative, as that of the cognate auvqe,nthj (“murderer” or “perpetrator”) and as the alleged historical and literary context of the prohibition would suggest (Ephesian women’s involvement in heresy and the domineering tendencies of emancipated, “new women”),57 1 Timothy would reject only women’s abuse of authority or their overbearing attitude, whereas legitimate exercise of authority would be allowed.58 Conversely other authors strive to prove that the fundamental and intrinsical meaning of the verb is positive or neutral, to show that what is prohibited here is women’s exercise of authority over men, as such.59 The major difficulty exegetes have to face is that the verbal form (auvqente,w), with the sense of having authority, is extremely rare in texts close in time to our passage.60 The vast majority of the occurrences of the verb are in later patristic literature, Byzantine historians and lexicographers,61 while in earlier and even contemporary texts the incidence of the substantival auvqe,nthj is overwhelming.62 Although the merger of two entirely different erroneous presuppositions and leaps in the argument, but see the review by R.E. OSTER, Biblical Archaeologist 56 (1993) 225–227. 57 WINTER, Roman Wives, esp. 116–119. 58 H. MARSHALL is very careful in his analysis, and although basically accepting the investigation of BALDWIN (“A Difficult Word”, 65–80), pays more attention to the negative connotations of the verb in the context. He argues that the backdrop of the reproval is the emancipation of women: their attitude is overbearing, belittling the role of men. “The quiet demeanour and recognition of authority which are to characterize the learner are contrasted with teaching in a manner which is heavy handed and abuses authority” (PE, 459–460). Similarly TOWNER, Letters, 222–223, with Winter’s “new woman” in mind. In PAYNE’s view the text forbids women to teach men by an illegitimate appropriation of authority, but there may be cases when women legitimately teach men. Thus 1 Timothy “prohibits women from seizing authority to teach men since the greatest risk of women spreading the false teaching and causing contention was in the assembled church where men were present” (“1 Tim 2.12”, 247–248). Tit 2,3–5 does indeed support women’s right to teach women, but the specification “man” in 1 Tim 2,12 does not prove that the restriction refers merely to the risk of women teaching heresy to men. Were it so, women embracing heresy would have been permitted to teach heresy to women and children. Payne’s inclusive reading of 1 Tim 3,1–2 (particularly of tij and mia/j gunaiko.j avnh,r), as attractive as it may appear to the modern reader, was hardly in the author’s mind. 59 See the otherwise thorough analysis of BALDWIN, “Difficult Word”, 65–80, and the appendix “auvqente,w in Ancient Greek Literature”, 269–305. His thesis is that the verb may not be explained from the substantival auvqe,nthj, and that the meaning “to murder” is only much later associated with the verb. He pleads for “assume authority over” or maybe “to flout the authority of”. While his case has some plausibility, it has to be said that almost all verbal uses that may have any relevance for our text are much later, and earlier texts use the substantive. See also VALLESKEY, “A Study of the Word Auqentew”; MOUNCE, PE, 125–130. 60 Such are papyrus BGU IV, 1208 (1st cent. BCE), where the verb means “to exercise authority over”, Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos (Saturn rules over Mercury and the moon); the lexicon of Moeris (2nd cent. CE), equating auvqentei/n to auvtodikei/n. Philodemus’ Rhetorica is uncertain (probably “those in authority”). See BALDWIN, “Difficult Word”, 74–76; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 292–293, n. 92. 61 Rightly, WILSHIRE, even when he does not seem to distinguish between the meaning of the substantive auvqe,nthj and of the verb auvqente,w, “The TLG Computer”, 120–134. 62 For examples of the substantive (murderer): R. CLARK KROEGER, C. CLARK KROGER, I Suffer Not, 84–86.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

230

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

roots with a similar spelling (auvto-e[nthj and auvto-qe,nthj) cannot be supported,63 and therefore auvqente,w and auvqe,nthj should be seen as cognates, it is also true that the verb should not be uncritically defined through the cognate noun. Two issues need to be considered. First, the auvqent-group, in all its possible meanings (whether read as causing, instigating, perpetrating or “simply” as ruling or having authority), suggests self-assertiveness due to the root auvto,j.64 Second, the context, both literary and cultural, is decisive for determining the meaning. As argued earlier, teaching in itself is an exercise of authority, and in the epistles authority is a central matter, commonly connected to certain preconditions (apostolic legitimation, institutional position, male gender). Thus, even when holding authority may be positive in itself, and even when one excludes the negative connotations of usurping authority or domineering, the cultural context makes a woman’s authority over men essentially negative65 and possible only in exceptional conditions. 3.5.2.4 The meaning of ouvde, The relationship between teaching and authority, implied in the ouvk+ouvde,+ avlla, statement (v. 12) is another issue dividing scholarship. Some argue that ouvde, would here distinguish between two different matters and as such would prohibit women to teach, as well as to exert authority over men, the latter being understood as a different act.66 It is nonetheless clear that the two verbs 63

See CHANTRAINE, s.v. auvqe,nthj, rejecting the supposition of Kretschmer on the fusion of the originally independent auvto-e[nthj (achieving/realising something by oneself) and auvto-qe,nthj (from qei,nw, to hit, kill). 64 Even in suicidal contexts the word stresses the authorship of the act. 65 Rightly WAGENER, Ordnung, 100. 66 KÖSTENBERGER, “Complex Sentence Structure”, 81–103 (striving to prove that using ouvde Paul forbids women two intrinsically positive acts), followed by MOUNCE, PE, 129–130, yet noting that the relationship between teaching and acting in authority “is that of principle and specific application of that principle […] Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church” (130). See also MOO, “What Does It Mean”, 176–192, 183 (While “ouvde, […] certainly usually joins ‘two closely related items’, it does not usually join together words that restate the same thing or that are mutually interpreting, and sometimes it joins opposites […]. Paul prohibits women from conducting either activity, whether jointly or in isolation, in relation to men”). Köstenberger has two extensive lists of examples where ouvde, connects either two positive activities / concepts, prohibited or denied due to circumstances, or two negative activities / concepts. He is right that in many cases the two may exist independently. Yet he fails to note that in all of his examples ouvde, intimately connects the two items. In certain cases the two form a hendiadys or merism (Matt 6,26, for farming; Acts 9,9: refraining from any meal; Luke 18,4: lacking reverence for any authority; Phil 2,16: all efforts pursued in vain). To see God (1 John 3,6) is synonymous with knowing him. In other cases the first activity is the precondition of the second (Matt 6,20). In Acts 16,21, Köstenberger’s closest NT parallel, to receive (parade,cesqai) foreign customs is the first step toward practicing (poiei/n) them. Therefore the two concepts connected by ouvde, are not independent. Dida,skein and auvqentei/n are not simply juxtaposed. Further,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

231

are connected and convey the same idea.67 Authority is the broader term that includes teaching. Dida,skein and auvqentei/n are connected because teaching is an expression of authority. 3.5.2.5 Summary Women who teach men exercise illegitimate authority, regardless of whether they teach heresy or not.68 Women may not, according to ancient cultural conventions, wield legitimate authority over men and public teaching, as a form of authoritative speech that addresses men in the community would be precisely such an exertion. Such activity is prohibited and is opposed to the avlla,-clause, that repeats the injunction to keeping silent (ei=nai evn h`suci,a).69 Spicq has made it clear long ago, even when his language reflects later ecclesial conditions: teaching is an office pertaining to the responsible hierarchy and cannot be exercised by women, who, just like the slaves, may not possess the authority of a didaskalos.70 (The association between women and slaves is Spicq’s, and very suggestive.) Spicq accurately recognised the intention of the author. The issue therefore is that women, because they are women, do not have the right to teach men, as this would be an exercise of authority over men and thus an illegitimate practice. This matter is connected with other themes, namely the unseemliness of female public speech and the topos according to which men are natural teachers of women (ĺ3.4.1–2).

while auvqentei/n does not necessarily mean “domineering”, in the cultural context exerting authority is negative in the case of women. PAYNE is right that ouvde, may also connect a positive and a negative concept (cf. 2 Cor 7,12; Sir 18,6LXX and others; “1 Tim 2.12”, 251–252). 67 PAYNE, analysing the Paulines and Luke–Acts concludes that ouvde connects two terms expressing a single idea, contrasted with the subsequent avlla, statement. 1 Tim 2,12 also conveys a single idea (“1 Tim 2.12”, 235–253). In spite of the limited applicability of Paul’s language, his analysis is correct. He distinguishes four cases: ouvde, joining two equivalent or synonymous expressions (Rom 2,28; 9,6–7; 1 Cor 15,50; Gal 1,1; 4,14; Phil 2,16); naturally paired expressions (Rom 11,21; Gal 3,28; 1 Thess 5,5); conceptually different expressions (Rom 3,10; 9,16; 1 Cor 2,6; 5,1; 11,16; Gal 1,16–17) and naturally paired ideas (Rom 8,7; 1 Cor 3,2; 4,3; 2 Cor 7,12; 1 Thess 2,3), all to convey a single idea. For the disputed Paulines he refers to 2 Thess 3,7–8; 1 Tim 6,7.16. None is an exact parallel, since ouvde, nowhere connects two infinitives that follow a finite verb. The exact parallel is Plb., Hist. 30,5,8, where the construction is bracketed by an inclusio, just as evn h`suci,a| frames 1 Tim 2. A close parallel (though with a participle, not an infinitive after avlla,) is Jos., Ant. 7,127. 68 Pace PAYNE, “1 Tim 2.12”, 248–249. True, the clause conveys “the single idea of women assuming authority to teach men”, but teaching was not restricted only because they taught error to men. 69 Although I differ from MOUNCE with respect to the authorship of 1 Tim and the relevance of the prohibition, I agree about the main point: “Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church” (PE, 130). 70 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 271 n. 2.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

232

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

3.5.3 Priority, authority and the argument from creation1 The previous chapters have addressed the cultural background2 of the prohibition to teach (1 Tim 2,11–12). Teaching is an expression of authority and ancient sources commonly view the man as ruler and teacher of the woman. In addition public speech is an instrument and a manifestation of power and a typically male attribute. Women speaking in public are labelled as unfeminine or licentious. Female authority is generally regarded as anomalous and condemnable. Women may hold authority exceptionally, in the absence of adequate male leaders, until normality is restored. These aspects explain why teaching, as public speech and an expression of authority, is prohibited for women. They are required to learn in silence and to submit; silence and submission are two of the major qualities required from women. The prohibition to teach can be illuminated by this cultural background. Furthermore, the author explicitly enforces the regulation through a theological argument taken from Genesis. Several authors think that the relecture of Gen 2–3 in 1 Tim 2,13–15, which is hostile to women, is a necessary reaction to their involvement in teaching heresy and/or to dangerous emancipatory tendencies.3 Earlier, however, it has been shown that women’s role in disseminating heterodox teachings stands on rather shaky ground. Moreover, while the Pastorals repeatedly name and blame men for teaching heterodoxy, this is not stated of women, although this would be the best legitimation for their exclusion from teaching. As shown above, women are mainly excluded from teaching and offices involving authority for being what they are. The religious argument is meant to justify the social, familial and ecclesial order that subordinates women to men and excludes them from positions of authority. This theological legitimation claims that the regulation ultimately reflects the order instituted in creation. This was threatened in the fall because of the woman and later on because of women usurping authority through teaching. Eventually, created order is re-established by way of subordinating the woman to the authority of the man. Through the relecture of the story of creation and 1

This chapter is a revised version of my “Creation and Fall in 1 Timothy”, 353–387. Against MOO, who claims that women’s subordination is not a cultural, but a transcultural, theological principle (“What Does It Mean”, 186–187). Such interpretation of 1 Tim 2,12 could easily lead to the conclusion that a multitude of similar Greco-Roman texts express a revealed truth. 3 BROX, Past, 133–134 (“allgemeine Mißstände” related to women prophecying, a heretical praxis, emancipatory tendencies associated with “ungute Erfahrungen”); OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 97– 98 (more specifically their link with Gnosticism); H. MARSHALL, PE, 441, 464–466; TOWNER, Letters, 222–224. While many explicitly parallel women’s silencing with that of false teachers, they do not not(ic)e that the first affects the entire (female) sex, but not so the rebuttal of male heterodox teachers. 2

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

233

fall the author argues that women should be excluded from public teaching and should be submitted to male authority precisely in view of their second rank in creation and due to their deceivable-deceiving nature. The prohibition to teach entailing the dichotomy between the man as teacher/ruler and the woman as learner/ruled is justified by a theological argument for male authority, namely that of priority in creation. The reasoning behind the re-reading of Genesis 2 (a Jewish source) coincides with Greco-Roman mentalities. Greco-Roman sources commonly argue from the natural order of relationships, sometimes thought to be rooted in divine will,4 and describe man’s rule over woman as conforming to nature, while its opposite as the reversal of natural law.5 The author of 1 Timothy adopts the same essentialist understanding of (gender) roles, building his case on the order of creation.6 3.5.3.1 The creation accounts A detailed exegesis of the creation narratives or an analysis of their reception would go beyond the purpose of this analysis. Some considerations are nonetheless necessary to show the degree to which 1 Timothy reinterprets its pre-text to endorse women’s exclusion from teaching. Originally Gen 1,26–27 and 2,7.21–24 belong to different traditions and describe the creation of humans in different ways.7 According to the first account there is no temporal sequence in the creation of man and woman (Gen 1,27).8 God creates humans or humanity (the generic ~da)9 as male 4

Xen., Oec. 7.16; Pl., Leg. 3, 690 A-C. For Stoicism, nature is normative for human acts and relations, even when what is according to nature is not a priori valuable and desirable, nor is female submission pervasively described as according to nature. For a complex discussion on telos and the concept of ta. kata. fu,sin: BONHÖFFER, The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus, 209–239 (pages refer to the Engl. translation). See Cic., Off. 1.28.98,100, 103, 107; 3.13.77, passim; Sen., Ep. 41,9; 45,9. 5 Pl., Leg. 11, 917A; Arist., Pol. 1.2.12, 1254B, cf. 1254A; Plut., Amat. 755BC; Okkel., De univ. nat. 46 (THESLEFF, 136,22–24; GUTHRIE, 210); Callicrat., De dom. felic. 4 (THESLEFF, 106,18–19, GUTHRIE, 236). 6 As P. BROWN notes, by referring to the myth of Adam and Eve, NT-writers provided “an image of unbreakable order that the pagan world could understand”, where the paradigm of marital concord expressed “the ideal harmony of a whole society” (The Body and Society, 57). The point of his discussion is the indissolubility of marriage, sustained by an extensive analysis of Eph. Brown’s remark is also applicable here, as the order of creation is used to sustain social order. 7 Against contemporary synchronic approaches that disregard a source-critical approach. 8 NOORT, “The Creation of Man and Woman”, 7–10. 9 On ~da as a generic, collective, gender-inclusive term for “human” or “humanity”: BDB s.v.; MAASS, s.v. ~da, ThDOT 1,75–87; HAMILTON, NIDOTTE, s.v. ~da. Compare the discussion in WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 275–276; SEEBASS, Genesis I, 81; TRIBLE, God, 18. Pace BARR, who argued that ~da would be an essentially male concept, that would sometimes include women if

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

234

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

(rkz) and female (hbqn) in the same time and hierarchy is not implied.10 Humans are made in the resemblance (mlc) and likeness (twmd) of God, a notion that most probably implies the idea of divine representation in the created world, drawing from ancient Near-Eastern royal theology.11 Conversely, Gen 2 is probably earlier,12 and focusing on the creation of humans, it describes a sequence of events that begins with the generic, but (in the context of the story) implicitly androcentric ~da.13 Distinction according to gender becomes explicit with the creation of the woman (hVa), when the ~da, the earthly creature, becomes vya, man.14 The narrative is implicitly androcentric, since in the end the woman is created for the man. However, the imagery – the creation of the woman from the rib (or side) of the ~da, as well as the vya–hVa wordplay, the joyful exclamation of the man at the sight of the woman and the set phrase “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to describe kinship – conveys the idea of intimate relationship, consubstantiality and belonging together.15 Superiority and inferiority, rule and subordination are not immediately in view,16 although the effective history of the text will go in that direction. they are with men (“One Man, or All Humanity?”, 3í21). Barr’s position is challenged by DE MOOR, “The First Human Being”, 22í27, and by CLINE, “~da”, 297í310. 10 WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 221; VERVENNE, “Genesis”, 55. 11 VON RAD, Gen, 58; SEEBASS, Gen I, 80–83; WENHAM, Gen 1–15, 29–33; BIRD, “Male and Female”, 129–159; SCHARBERT, Gen 1í11, 44í45. On the interpretation of mlc and twmd see also M. MILLER, “Image”, 289–304; MILLARD, BORDREUIL, “Statue from Syria”, 135–141; SCHÜLE, “Made in the ›Image of God‹”, 1–20; FERRER, “Imatge de Déu”, 11–30. 12 For a reassessment of the debate on the priority of the creation-narratives: VERVENNE, “Genesis”, 35–79. 13 The ~da–hmda wordplay expresses the intimate relation between human beings and soil (clay), and as such it underscores the broad sense of ~da as frail creature. So at least in Gen 2 ~da does not designate a man named Adam (even on the problematic 2,20: WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 312), nor is the term necessarily gender-specific, but androcentric-inclusive. See also the discussion in DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 250, and LAPIDE, Eva, 71–72 (~da as “Erdling”). 14 TRIBLE, God, 98; CLIFFORD, “Gen (1,1í25,18)”, 12; NOORT, “Creation”, 11; MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor, 50–51. Pace KAWASHIMA, “Revisionist Reading Revisited”, 46–57, who states the maleness of ~da, based on 2,23. He fails to notice that the creation account establishes a secondary aetiology of the vya–hVa wordplay that obviously existed independently from the narrative and connects it to the aetiology of the attraction between sexes from a male perspective (on the heterogeneous character of v. 23 and the original independence of the name-aetiology in 23b: DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 73–74). 15 WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 313–314, 317–318. On the pun evoking affinity, LAPIDE, Eva, 78–79. 16 SEEBASS, Gen I, 115; NOORT, “Creation”, 10–12; D. COTTER, Gen, 31–32. Becoming one flesh (2,24) expresses full communion, since as anthropological concept rfB designates here the human being as a whole (CHISHOLM, s.v. rfB, NIDOTTE 1, 777–779; WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 318. On the meanings of rfB see also H. WOLFF, Anthropology, 26–31 (29, on Gen 2,24: common body, fellowship of life).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

235

The LXX changes the meaning of the Hebrew text in a number of ways. Due to the synchronic reading of Gen 1–2, ~da is alternately translated with a;nqrwpoj or with the male proper name Adam and this leads to the identification of the generic ~da of Gen 1,26–27 with the male Adam. Due to this change, being created in the image and likeness of God will be interpreted as a male attribute. In addition, the translation removes meanings inherent to the Hebrew text.17 The loss of the sense of the vya–hVa wordplay explains why Gen 2 LXX has less emphasis on the deep interrelation between man and woman. Of all the details of the creation account(s) 1 Timothy takes over only man’s priority in creation and uses this element to buttress male authority. 3.5.3.2 The topos of priority The topos of priority is commonly used in ancient sources, both GrecoRoman and Jewish, as an expression of pre-eminence, to emphasise superiority and to bolster authority.18 Divine superiority is expressed by a god’s old age. Gods, heroes or outstanding humans are defined as the prw/toi eu`retai, or founders of cities, crafts, arts, laws or traditions. This is a common topic of encomia. Orpheus and Pythagoras are founders of culture, Homer and Hesiod are prw/toi qeologh,santej, Democrit and Socrates the first in various branches of philosophy, Empedocles the founder of rhetoric, Thales of physics. The priority of cities is grounded in their old age. Athens is described as founder of philosophy. For Romans, the moral precepts embraced by illustrious ancestors (mos maiorum) are the best.19 The motif is not without difficulties, since it does not always work as expected. Greeks will be confronted with the precedence of Egypt and/or Asia, and Jews will have to face the priority of Greek culture and philosophy. Subsequently, Jewish apologetic literature will strive to defend the antiquity of Mosaic religion and laws, by presenting Abraham as the founder of Chaldean astrology and Moses of writing, law and philosophy, and to prove the dependence of Greek philosophy on Jewish wisdom.20 The topos of priority will be used to prove that Jewish religion and wisdom are superior to the Greek.21 17 On the differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text, and the way these influenced early Christian exegesis, see BOUTENEFF, Beginnings, 10–12, 83, 173–174. 18 See the discussion of the topos by THRAEDE, “Erfinder II”, 1191–1278. PILHOFER has an impressive number of examples from Greek, Roman and Jewish sources for what he calls the “Altersbeweis” (Presbyteron kreitton, esp. 8–12, 17–205). See also SPICQ, Épîtres I, 380–381, 386; WOLTER, Past, 53–54. 19 Greek and Roman examples in this paragraph are mainly from Thraede and Pilhofer (above). 20 See DROGE, Homer, 18–19 (Moses), 22 (Henoch and Abraham in astrology), 25–27, passim. 21 Christianity will face a similar difficulty in its relation to Judaism and to non-Christian cul-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

236

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

Addressing the qualities required from the guardians, Plato establishes a connection between age and authority: “that the rulers must be the elder and the ruled the younger is obvious,” and certainly “the rulers must be their best”.22 Age involves temporal priority, to which value is added by means of greater wisdom and experience.23 An even clearer point is made in the Laws: Now the better are the superiors of the worse, and the older in general of the younger; wherefore also parents are superior to their offspring, men to women and children, rulers to ruled. And it will be proper for all to revere all these classes of superiors, whether they be in other positions of authority or in offices of State above all.24

Discussing at length the conditions that make someone worthy of praise, Aristotle states that “virtues and actions are nobler, when they proceed from those who are naturally worthier (tw/n fu,sei spoudaiote,rwn), for instance, from a man rather than from a woman”.25 He goes on to emphasise the importance that should be assigned to the singularity or priority of a deed: “if a man has done anything alone, or first, or with a few, or has been chiefly responsible for it (eiv mo,noj h' prw/toj h' metV ovli,gwn h' kai. o= ma,lista pepoi,hken); all these circumstances render an action noble.”26 In the Timaeus Plato argues that man is prior to the woman in creation, since she is derived from man.27 The point is made to support male superiority – men who fail to live justly, are ruled by passions, act cowardly or do ture. The priority of Greek philosophy will be solved either by its Christianisation or by its demonisation. The allegorical-typological reading of the Old Testament will secure the prominence of Christianity over Judaism. In the confrontation with heresies, priority will be a major argument. 22 Plt. 3.19, 412C. 23 On age expressing superiority see also BARCLAY, “Neither Old Nor Young?”, 225–241, with further examples from Thucydides, Plutarch, Cicero, and Philo. 24 “krei/ttouj de. oi` avmei,nouj tw/n ceiro,nwn, presbu/tai te w`j evpi. to. pa/n eivpei/ tw/n ne,wn, dio. kai. gonh/j krei,ttouj evkgo,nwn kai. a;ndrej dh. gunaikw/n kai. pai,dwn a;rconte,j te avrcome,nwn\ ou[j aivdei/sqai pa/sin pa,ntaj pre,pon a;n ei;h evn a;llh| te avrch|/ pa,sh| kai. evn tai/j politikai/j dh. ma,lista avrcai/j.” Leg. 11, 917A. Aristotle goes in the same direction when he states that every household is ruled by the eldest (Pol. 1.7, 1252B), and that the male is by nature better fitted to command, just as the older and more mature (Pol. 1.5.2, 1259B). 25 Arist., Rhet. 1.9.22, 1367A (transl. Freese). 26 Arist., Rhet. 1.9.38, 1368A. For the application of this motif to the doxologies in 1 Timothy see NEYREY, “«First»”, 59–87. He starts from the same Aristotelian passage and adds Rhet. 2.7.2, Cic., De Orat. 2.85.347, Quint., Inst. 3.7.16, Theon, 9.35–38, Lys. 2.17–18; the Isis-aretalogy in Diod. Sic. 1.27.4. He shows how the topos of the “first”, the “only”, or the “excelling” in some endeavour is used in epideictic rhetoric to point to the excellence of the person described as such. Neyrey has in view the rhetorical power of the divine attributes in 1 Tim 1,17, that demonstrate God’s excellence. On the topos of priority used to prove “Paul’s” eminent authority in 1 Tim 1,12– 17, see the detailed discussion WOLTER, Past, 51–56. 27 Pl., Tim. 42b, 90E. See also 76d: “For those who were constructing us knew that out of men women should one day spring” (transl. Lamb).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

237

evil, and will be turned into women at the second birth or reincarnation. This shows that women are originally men who have failed to live according to their noble vocation. The claim should be read in connection with the assertion introducing the creation of humans, that man is the better sex.28 The topos of priority is extensively applied in the Old Testament as well. The matter is illustrated by the pre-eminence of the first-born, a term also used to express the prominence of the king (Psa 89,28), of Israel (Exod 4,22) and of Wisdom (Prov 8,22).29 On several occasions, the New Testament uses the topos to establish someone’s authority.30 The prw,toi are those in authority (Mark 6,21).31 The first place assigned to the apostles on the list of ministries in 1 Cor 12,28 most likely suggests their eminent importance.32 Interestingly enough, in 1 Cor 15,45–47 Paul refers to Adam as prw/toj a;nqrwpoj, yet not from an anthropological, but a theological perspective. He contrasts the first man or first Adam, earthly, natural and receiver of life, with the last (e;scatoj) Adam, the deu,teroj a;nqrwpoj, Christ, spiritual, heavenly and life-giving. Temporal priority alludes to the creation account, yet Christ, the second and last man, is superior to the chronologically-prior earthly Adam.33 Further, although Paul refers to Adam’s precedence in creation, the creation of the woman is not an issue here. This Pauline 28 diplh/j de. ou;shj th/j avnqrwpi,nhj fu,sewj( to. krei/tton toiou/ton ei;h ge,noj o] kai. e;peita keklh,soito avnh,r (42A). 29 KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 21–32, here 22–23. See also SPICQ, Épîtres I, 380–381. Rabbinic literature ascribes the title even to Adam, although he may hardly be described as born at all (Num R 4,8 to Num 3,45, quoted by KÜCHLER, 23). The eminent religious importance of Abraham or Moses is related to their priority. The argument from age also expresses superiority in Jewish literature, as in Sifre Deut 37 to Deut 11,10 (the priority and superiority of Hebron over Zoan, and implicitly of Israel over Egypt). The argument is analysed in detail by Küchler. Yet he cites other passages that contradict the principle that “the first is the best” (pp. 24–30). 30 Jesus is superior to John the Baptist because he was before him (prw/to.j mou h=n; John 1,15.30), and he is greater than Abraham, because he preceded him (John 8,53–58). Christ is the first-born (prwto,tokoj) from the perspective of both creation and resurrection (Col 1,15.17–18); he is assigned priority implying authority (evn pa/sin auvto.j prwteu,wn). Peter is the first (prw/toj) on the list of the apostles in Matt 10,2, and the first witness of the Resurrected (1 Cor 15,5). See the discussion in WOLTER, Past, 52, and further (104–107), on Petrine precedence, resulting from his priority in receiving revelation (cf. Matt 16,17), but also from his being the first of the called apostles, motifs developed in more detail in early Christian writings. 31 Just as the prw/toi tou/ laou/ (Luke 19,47), the prw,toi th/j po,lewj (Acts 13,50), the prw/toi tw/n VIoudai,wn (Acts 25,2; 28,17). 32 One should also note the reversal of priority in Mark 9,35 and 10,44, par. Matt 20,27, in Mark 10,31 par. Matt 19,30; 20,10.16 and Luke 13,30. The subtle play on priority in John 20,4.8, and in 21,7 is a special case: the beloved disciple is the first to reach the tomb, although Peter will enter it first; later on the beloved disciple is the first to recognise the identity of the Resurrected, although Peter will be the first to reach shore and meet him. See the discussion in WOLTER, Past, 107–112. 33 Not that the earthly Adam is unimportant, since Paul defends the resurrection of the dead, against spiritualising tendencies.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

238

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

reference to the (second) account of creation even reverses the topos of priority to a certain degree. As opposed to this, 1 Tim 2,13 will propose the classical reading “the first, the best” in his anthropological argument. The reinterpretation of the creation narrative(s) in 1 Tim 2,13 is not only a relecture of Gen, but very likely also of 1 Cor 11,3.7–12, a text that already refers to the order of creation to make a point concerning gender relations in the ekklƝsia.34 3.5.3.3 The argument from creation in 1 Cor 11 In 1 Cor 11, the priority and superiority of the man is also an issue. The point is suggested by the kefalh,-metaphor (v. 3)35 and the description of the man as eivkw.n kai. do,xa of God (v. 7). The woman is only the do,xa of man.36 Man’s anteriority in creation and the derivative nature of the woman in also emphatic (vv. 8–9).37 The precedence of the man is connected with the difficult dia. tou/to ovfei,lei h` gunh. evxousi,an e;cein evpi. th/j kefalh/j in v. 10, which is translated as woman possessing authority or conversely being under authority.38 The issue is of some importance due to the incorporation of the topic of female authority in the discussion of male-female relations from the 34 See ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 128í130; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 93; PAYNE, “Fuldensis”, 248í249; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 334í339; TOWNER, Letters, 193í194, 215. Roloff admits that 1 Tim has used the argument on man’s priority in creation, but eventually parallels only 1 Tim 2,11–15 with 1 Cor 14,34–36 (pp. 129í130). For Paul’s reading of the creation accounts in 1 Cor 11, see MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor, 50–51. 35 Kefalh, is interpreted either as source or as authority. The first reading is based on the figurate meaning of kefalh, in ancient Greek (“source”): MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “1 Cor”, 808; SCHRAGE, 1 Kor II, 501í505 and the quoted literature (suggesting nevertheless that authority is very likely implied); KLAUCK, 1 Kor, 81; cf. also LSJ, 945. For “ruler” or authority see FITZMYER, “KephalƝ in I Corinthians 11:3”, 52í59; ID., “The Meaning of KephalƝ”, 80–88; LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, “Man, Woman”, 76–92. See also BDAG, 542: “being of high status”, denoting superior rank. Paul may have had a subordinationist perspective on both Christology (cf. 1 Cor 15,24–28) and gender relationships. This reading of 1 Cor 11,3 will be preferred by Eph 5,22–24, which legitimates woman’s submission with the headship of man. Theophylact combines the two meanings: the man is the head of the woman as he rules her; God, as Father is the head of Christ, the Son, as the cause of his existence (Exp. Ep. I Cor. XI, PG 124, 693CD). 36 In v. 7 Paul not only alludes to, but also reinterprets Gen 1,26–27: being in the image of God (eivkw.n kai. do,xa) is explicitly a male attribute. 37 See the discussion in SCHRAGE, 1 Kor II, 509–512; LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, “Man, Woman”, 84–86, TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 147 (noting the contradictions in Paul’s argument). A. MERZ has offered an excellent intertextual analysis of 1 Cor 11,2–5 as a pre-text of 1 Tim 2,13; 1 Tim 2,13 functions as a fictitious self-reference correcting its pre-text (Selbstauslegung, 339–343). 38 SCHRAGE, 1 Kor II, 514 defends women’s own authority (as in all other occurrences of evxousi,a in the NT), but understands evpi. evxousi,an as referring to the object upon which women should exert authority (their head), by doing what is appropriate. Similarly, according to LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, a woman should have control over her head (“Man, Woman”, 86–87).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

239

perspective of creation. Yet, it is striking that even when Paul argues for the derivative origin of the woman, his subsequent reflection appears to correct this one-sided perspective, as he goes on asserting the interdependence of man and woman, even in terms of origin (11,11–12). 3.5.3.4 The relecture of the creation accounts in 1 Tim 2,13 From an intertextual perspective, 1 Tim 2,13 is a one-sided relecture of the second creation account.39 The first account (Gen 1,1í2,4a) is neglected in some details and read in the light of Gen 2.40 In fact we have a synchronic reading of Gen 1–3 LXX, which already modifies the original narrative and removes meanings inherent to the Hebrew text. A synchronic reading of Gen 1–3 appears already in earlier sources. In Jubilees chronology also connects the two accounts,41 and it already implies the inferiority of the woman.42 The paraphrase in Sir 17,1–7 also presupposes the synchronic reading of Gen 1–3. In 1 Timothy the topos of priority is introduced firstly with respect to Paul, to emphasise his authority. The entire sequence in 1,12–17 deals with his legitimation. He is the prw/toj, the first saved sinner (1,15), the first to have experienced Christ’s magnanimity and saving will and, subsequently, the authentic and normative proclaimer of the gospel, equipped with an exceptional authority.43 The doxology in 1 Tim 1,17 connects Paul’s priority 39 Referred to (at least for reasons of convenience) as the “Yahwist” account, even when OTscholars disagree about the temporal setting and even the existence of a Yahwist source. On the matter: SKA, Introduzione, esp. 165í181, 213í229. In spite of contemporary preferences for synchronic, narratological or canonical approaches (e.g. D. COTTER, Gen, xxiii–xxiv, 26), it is my conviction that awareness of the process of composition is essential to understanding texts. Synchronic approaches may add new perspectives, but cannot replace a historical-critical interpretation without an incommensurate loss to exegesis. 40 JEWETT, Man as Male and Female, 119. Such a synchronic reading occurs already in 1 Cor 11, MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor, 50. 41 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees (1989). The tendency to harmonise the two accounts by omissions and rearrangements is noted by VAN RUITEN, Primaeval History, 75, passim. Interestingly, in this line, Jub 3,8 takes Gen 1,27 (i.e. male and female) to refer to Adam and his wife – the rib. 42 Adam was created on the sixth day of creation; the woman only on the sixth day of the second week. She was created outside the garden, entering it only eighty days later, and forty days after the man (Jub 2,13–14; 3,6.8–9). According to VAN RUITEN (Primaeval History, 87) forty days after Adam’s first intercourse, but Eve has to wait forty more days. This chronological precedence explains purity laws, but it obviously implies male superiority. 43 I take prw/toj to refer to temporal priority; cf. WOLTER Past, 50–51; BROX, Past, 115–116; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 96; see LSJ s.v. prwte,uw (prw/toj). Pace DONELSON, Pseudepigraphy, 103; FIORE, Personal Example, 199; ID., PE, 50; L. JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 180, who read a superlative. I have dealt elsewhere with the significance of this text for legitimising the authority of third generation church leadership, “Thanksgiving”, 3–14.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

240

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

(underpinning his authority) with the eternal royal rule of the one God, another topos that establishes excellence.44 Remarkably, before 1 Tim 2,13 the topos is already used to legitimise the authority of those in charge with teaching. This matter is crucial in the epistle. Paul, as prw/toj, is the teacher who possesses the appropriate authority to transmit the sound doctrine and to reject heterodoxy. The authority of the apostle grounds that of “Timothy”, the contemporary church leader (1,2–3.18–19).45 The motif is similarly used to emphasise authority and the right to teach in 1 Tim 2,10–13. The same reasoning is applied to Adam in 1 Tim 2,13, again referred to as the prw/toj. Here Adam and Eve are paradigmatic characters, archetypes that both predetermine the fate and symbolise the nature of man and woman. Subsequently, Adam’s priority in creation and Eve’s being formed second are determinant and relevant for man as possessing authority and woman as subordinated being. In this relecture of both Gen and 1 Cor 11, 1 Timothy entirely drops the idea of interrelation and mutuality, sharpening the implicit androcentrism of Gen 2. The only idea preserved is that of Adam’s priority, which is unequivocally understood as superiority. In 1 Tim 2,13 there is no reference to the woman being the do,xa of man (vs. 1 Cor 11,7), even less to humans being made in the image of God as male and female. The chronological precedence of the man in creation (Gen 2), understood as a sign of his superiority, becomes even more categorical; we find nothing comparable to the reciprocity-statement of 1 Cor 11,11–12.46 The function of the argument from creation is obvious – the man is superior to the woman and has authority over her because of his priority. Therefore a woman may not hold sway over man. If she would teach in public, she would thereby exert authority over men, and such an act would reverse the order of creation.47 Beside modifying the meaning of the creation accounts, the reading of 1 Tim 2,13 creates some additional difficulties. As Jewett has noticed, if one applies the principle of “the prior the superior” to Gen 2, one would need to postulate the inferiority of man with relation to the ground from which he is 44

NEYREY, “«First»”, see above. On the significance of “Timothy” as a type of the third generation leader: OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 5, 52–53; 2 Tim, 22–25. The apostolic authority becomes manifest in that of Timothy, Paul’s legitimate successor (1,2–3.18–19; cf. 2 Tim 1,13–14; 2,1–2). 46 MERZ rightly speaks of the “neutralisation” of the potential corrective function of 1 Cor 11,11–12 (Selbstauslegung, 341í343). 47 KÜCHLER suggests that 1 Tim 2,13 is based on a haggadic interpretation of Gen 2, meant to establish an early Christian halacha prohibiting women to teach (Schweigen, 30–32, cf. 20–21). While the haggadic character is identifiable, one does not need to take the rule for a Jewish halacha. Küchler rightly notes that 1 Tim 2,13 does not do justice to the meaning of this creation account (cf. also JEWETT, Man, 126). 45

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

241

fashioned, a view that could not have been intended by the author of Gen.48 This shows that the author does not apply the topos of priority consistently; he uses it only as far as it serves his purpose. This points to the difficulties of the topos. Jewett’s argument that man’s emergence from the ground could sustain the priority and superiority of the soil over humans is not as absurd as it seems to some exegetes.49 The Greek myth of autochthony was construed precisely in order to defend superiority. The soil of which Erechteus, the ancestor of Athenian men, is born, is not only Gaia, but also the “civic soil” (Athens), and homeland is prior and superior to the individual. On the other hand, autochthony sustains Athenian supremacy over non-Athenians, citizens’ rights against strangers and male superiority over women.50 These reflections show that the topos of priority was widely used to buttress authority, and not only for members of the same species. However, the topos created its own difficulties, of which 1 Tim 2,13 is not exempt. 3.5.3.5 Jewish precedents of the relecture? 1 Timothy is not the first to propose a relecture of the creation account(s), but probably relies on Jewish patterns of interpretation. Sir 17,1–7 is a summary and paraphrase of Gen 1–3 recounting the creation, function and fate of man.51 The creation of the woman appears only in the Vg, but it may be implied by the inclusive a;nqrwpoj. The view that man is superior in creation is common in Jewish sources. Yet, these do not focus on male priority, but rather on the idea that the 48

JEWETT, Man, 126. MOUNCE too hastily dismisses Jewett’s point, arguing that Paul did not intend to state an axiomatic truth on the sequence of creation, but simply considered the fact that Adam was created before Eve as significant (PE, 133). Yet, it is clear that the argument in 1 Tim 2,13 relies precisely on the sequence of creation in Gen 2, while an analogous reasoning that could envisage the reversed sequence in Gen 1, is omitted. In case of a synchronic reading of Gen 1–2, the argument becomes even more problematic, given animals’ precedence over humans. Mounce thinks that priority would apply only to the members of the same species. Yet, this is inaccurate. According to Gen 1 man is created last and has dominion over the priorly created world, animals included. On the other hand, were the logic of priority applied consistently, one could reach the surprising conclusion that animals, being prior, are superior to man, yet, this clearly contradicts the intention of Gen 1. Conversely, applying the logic of Gen 1 to Gen 2, one could claim that woman is superior to man (JEWETT, Man, 126–127). LAPIDE, adopting a synchronic reading, asserts that, as last created, Eve is the crown of creation (Eva, 80). 50 LORAUX, The Children of Athena, 3–22 (“Autocthony and the Athenian Imaginary”), 42, passim; NIMIS, “Autochthony”, 397–420. 51 The a;nqrwpoj was created from the earth in the image of God, who gave him dominion over the living, and established that he shall return to the earth. The knowledge of good and evil is a gift of God, the equivalent of wisdom, and not a result of the fall. For the way Sir reinterpretes Gen: J. COLLINS, “Before the Fall”, 298–301; WRIGHT, “Biblical Interpretation”, 377–380. 49

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

242

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

woman derives from man. Philo’s twofold, literal and allegorical reading of Gen 2 offers an ambivalent view on the relationship between man and woman. The creation of the woman from the rib of the man suggests that man and woman make up the human race in equal manner; nonetheless allegorically the man symbolises the intellect, while his rib, the woman, sense-perception (“virtus sensitiva”).52 The woman was not formed out of the soil, like the man and the animals: first, because the woman is not equal in honour with the man (“ne aequalis dignitatis cum viro sit mulier”). Second, because she is not equal in age, but younger. […] Third, he wishes that man should take care of woman as of a very necessary part of him; but woman, in return, should serve him as a whole. Fourth, he counsels man figuratively to take care of woman as of a daughter, and woman to honour man as a father.53

The derivative nature of the woman expresses her inferiority and her subordination to the man. Philo even develops the distinction of gendered spaces and roles from this account.54 Referring to Gen 2,24, he asserts that the man has the authority of a master (kuri,an e;cwn evxousi,an) and “the woman, taking the rank of a servant, is shown to be obedient to his life.”55 The same view is expressed by Josephus: “The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior (cei,rwn) to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, 52 QG 1.25. Marcus suggests the Greek text had pleura, (cf. LCL, 14, note e.) The Latin reads: “vir et mulier, ceu sectiones naturae, coaequales ad constitutionem generis, quod vocatur Homo […] vir est symbolice intellectus; et hujus costa una, virtus sensitiva; sensatio autem consilii magis variabilis erit mulier”. The body of the woman is the quasi-half of the man’s body, as suggested by her corporeal and intellectual abilities (vires animae). For that reason the fashioning of the male is more perfect, and yet requires only forty days, half of the time needed for creating the less perfect female. (A somewhat similar argument on women’s natural inferiority appears in Pl., Leg. 6, 781B: “in proportion as woman’s nature is inferior to that of men in capacity for virtue, in that degree the consequence of such neglect [of legislation] is more than twice as important”). According to QG 1.37, “mulier est symbolice sensus, et vir intellectus.” This symbolic interprettation of the male as the rational/intellectual, superior principle, and of the female as the derived, inferior, affective element will be decisive in patristic exegesis as well: Ambr., Parad. 3.12 (CSEL 32.1); Aug., Gn. c. Man., 2.11.14–27, cf. 2.14.28–30 (CSEL 91). 53 QG 1.27 (transl. Marcus). 54 The creation of the woman is referred to as edification because the house symbolises the full community and concord between man and woman. Gender roles are derived from this concept. The affairs of the city are assigned to the man, those of the house to the woman. Her absence means ruin, while her presence is the sign of a good management of the household (QG 1.26). 55 QG 1.29: “Maxime quod ipse dominico principatu gaudiens, verendus est de fastu: mulier autem servitii sumens ordinem, probata est assentiri consorti vitae”. An identical view is expressed in Hypoth. 7.3, yet here it is not deduced from the creation account, but stated within the discussion of various types of rule, similar to the treatment of the topic by Aristotle: “Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things (gunai/kaj avndra,si douleu,ein( pro.j u[brewj ouvdemia/j( pro.j euvpei,qeian d v evn a[pasi).”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

243

not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed (i[n v a;rchtai); for the authority has been given by God to the man (Qeo.j to. avndri. to. kra,toj e;dwken).”56 All these passages, whether directly commenting upon the creation account or not, connect male superiority with authority and inferior female nature with submission and servitude. Priority is not an immediate concern for Jewish authors. 3.5.3.6 Summary The argument from creation in 1 Tim 2,13 is essentially a re-reading of Gen 1–2, with a rather narrow focus on male priority and authority. First-century Jewish reinterpretations of the creation accounts also emphasise male superiority and authority and link woman’s inferiority to her subordination, yet priority properly speaking is not an issue. The immediate pre-text of 1 Tim 2 is most probably 1 Cor 11,3.7–12. While the relecture proposed by Paul augments the implicit androcentrism of the creation narratives, 1 Tim 2,13 takes the process further, removing all the positive elements that affirm the dignity of the woman and the reciprocal relationship between sexes. With its focus on priority, the text buttresses male authority and female subordination, to confer a theological justification for teaching being an exclusively male role. 3.5.4 Fall and subordination The second theological argument for women’s exclusion from public teaching is a hamartiological one, drawing from the account of the fall. 1 Corinthians 11 has already used the argument from male precedence in creation to reinforce appropriate gender behaviour at worship. 1 Timothy adds a new element, to argue that teaching is an exclusively male attribute. Again, no detailed exegesis of Gen 3 will be proposed here, yet, the main points of the story will be rehearsed, to show the manner in which 1 Tim 3,14 uses its pretext. 3.5.4.1 The narrative of the fall In Gen 3 the woman has a role to play in the transgression of the divine commandment,57 but she is not the sole actor of the fall, nor does she bear 56

C. Ap. 2.201 (transl. Thackeray). The editor refers here to Gen 3,16. Knowing good and evil implies creatures’ wish to transcend their human condition (VON RAD, Gen, 86–87). 57

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

244

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

exclusive responsibility,58 even when the Wirkungsgeschichte will go in that direction. The chain of events starts with the temptation and promise uttered by the serpent, continues with the woman giving in, eating in the presence of the man,59 and suggesting him to do the same. Man assents and eats. The transgression of the man is mediated by the incentive of the woman, but he is not aquitted from the blame. The woman eats because of the goodness of the tree and its fruit (Gen 3,6). Besides the clearly positive bAj, the Hebrew has the ambivalent hwaT (desire) and dmx (to desire, take pleasure), while the Greek (possibly known to our author) uses only positive terms to describe the tree and its fruit: kalo,n, avresto,n, w`rai/on. The deed is recorded in a very concise manner: she took, ate, gave to the man and he ate (3,6). The narrative has no reference to female evil or weakness, persuasion or enticement.60 This theme will later appear in early Judaism,61 and it becomes a dominant motif in patristic literature.62 Transgression affects both in the same way (v. 7). Both deflect responsibility unto someone else: the man unto the woman who gave him to eat and eventually unto God, who gave him the woman (both times !tn, LXX di,dwmi); the woman unto the serpent who deceived her (avn, LXX avpata,w). God questions all three characters (man–woman–serpent) and “punishment” goes to all three (in reverse order). The aetiological character of the “punishment” has long been recognised.63 The story explains the loss of a primordial bliss and proposes the aetiology of the conditio humana: suffering, gender-specific distress and possibly death enter the world due to humans’ primeval challenge of a divine commandment. Tribulations affect both woman and man, and their specificity reflects the social condition of each sex in antiquity. The aetiology explains the affliction of the woman (as wife and mother)64 and her subordination; the man is affected in his labour for subsistence, carried out in the outside world.

58 COTTER, Gen, 35. LAPIDE even asserts the opposite (Eva, 86–87, 91–92): Eve is open-minded, intelligent and active; she is the first theologian. Adam is passive, closed-minded, pathetic. One need not accept Lapide’s characterisation, but this is another reading of the text. It is not that of the author (eating means transgressing divine will). However, Adam’s passivity is remarkable. 59 In the MT and the LXX the man is present (HM[ Hvyal, tw/| avndri. auvth/j metV auvth/j, 3,6) 60 HIGGINS, “The Myth of Eve”, 639–647; DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 132. 61 KVAM, Eve and Adam, 41–68; BOUTENEFF, Beginnings, 17, 26. 62 I have dealt elsewhere with the patristic (re)interpretation of the story of creation and fall: “The Quest for the ‘Eternal Feminine’”, 501–522. 63 VON RAD, Gen, 89, 93; WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 352–354, 356–357; more recently D. COTTER, Gen, 35; METTINGER, Eden Narrative, 72–73, 84. 64 For a critical assessment of the aetiological character of v. 16, emphasising the originally positive connotation of procreation, see DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 122–130.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

245

3.5.4.2 The reinterpretation of the fall in 1 Tim 2,14–15 1 Tim 2,14–15 is a relecture of the account of the fall, with a clear reference to Gen 3,13b in v. 14 and an allusion to Gen 3,16 in v. 15. Küchler suggested that this brief account is a Kurzformel, intended to present what a reader regards to be the main point of the narrative.65 This may well be the case. Whether intentionally or not, the author offers his view of the essence of Gen 3, to be sure, in a very particular way. What strikes the commentator is the total decontextualisation of Gen 3,13b (o` o;fij hvpa,thse,n me) in 1 Tim 2,14 that reads: VAda.m ouvk hvpath,qh( h` de. gunh. evxapathqei/sa evn paraba,sei ge,gonen. This decontextualisation is obvious even when we leave aside all historical-critical considerations regarding the genre, the mythical frame, the metaphorrical sense and the aetiological motivation of the narrative in Gen 3. The woman (the generic gunh,, not Eve) is the only actor and the only one who fails. The contrast between Adam and the gunh, is used to suggest that the woman is intrinsically liable to deception. The role of the serpent is implied, but the man as actor is absent. The verse is an enhanced quotation of Gen 3,13bĮ (due to the use of evxapata,w instead of the avpata,w of the LXX)66 – the woman was fully deceived (evxapathqei/sa). It also modifies the meaning of the pre-text, denying that Adam was deceived. This statement contradicts Gen 3,67 according to which both woman and man are beguiled by the hope of becoming like gods and disobey the prohibition. While the author writes in the name of Paul, the absolution of Adam is at odds with Paul’s view of the universality of sin.68 Thus 1 Timothy proposes a relecture of Gen in multiple ways: through decontextualisation and the omission of essential elements of the pre-text, through the overemphasis of one element by means of generalisation and by drawing an unfounded conclusion from a decontextualised detail of the story. In Gen 3,13, when the woman affirms that she was seduced by the serpent, she gives a reason for her transgression. The same is done earlier, with other words, by Adam: he transgressed because he was induced by the woman given to him by God. Both affirmations are meant to explain the deed and to avert responsibility. The pattern is identical, even when the words differ, which is an important element of the pre-text which 1 Timothy leaves aside. This allows the author to formulate the puzzling 65

KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 33. Only Theodoret cites Gen 3,13 using evxhpa,thse, but in the commentary to 1 Tim, it is clearly under the influence of that text (1 Tim 651, ad 1 Tim 3,14, PG 82, 801; WEVERS, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum I, ad Gen 3,13). TRUMMER notes the v.l. of Theod. without closer reference (Paulustradition, 148). 67 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 139; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 99. 68 Rightly, LINDEMANN, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, 138. 66

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

246

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

assertion that Adam was not seduced. The underlying logic is this: whatever is not explicitly stated in these precise words, may be denied.69 3.5.4.3 The woman was fully deceived vExapata,w (to deceive or beguile thoroughly70) occurs a number of times in the NT. Once it refers to the individual, deceived by sin, through the commandment (Rom 7,11). Remarkably, the four other occurences refer to dissent in the community caused by erroneous views. Paul uses the verb in Rom 16,18 with respect to those of the dissension and scandals (16,17), obviously the false teachers, who deceive the heart of the innocent with smooth words; the faithful should instead stick to what they have learnt (v. 17). Corinthians are warned against deceiving themselves (1 Cor 3,18); the context is that of Corinthian dissent brought about by adherence to factions and to false wisdom.71 2 Thess 2,3 asks Christians to avoid being deceived by those who promote an iminent parousia. The closest parallel to our text is 2 Cor 11,3. As Annette Merz has shown, 1 Tim 2,14 is an intertextual relecture of 2 Cor 11,3.72 Therefore the meaning of this text deserves attention. After his self-defence in ch. 10 (taken up again in 11,5ff), Paul voices his fear that just as the serpent deceived Eve (o` o;fij evxhpa,thsen Eu[an), the mind of the community might also be led astray (lit. corrupted) from its singleminded devotion and chastity in Christ.73 The next verse shows that such estrangement could be induced by those proclaiming a different teaching. In view of 2 Cor 11,5.22–23 and 12,11–12, Paul appears to fear the harmful influence that Jewish Christian opponents, ranking among “the most eminent apostles”, may have on the community. This context is important, since countering the opponents is also essential to 1 Timothy. Some authors suggest that 2 Cor 11,3 takes over the sexual re-interpretation of Gen 3,13 in Jewish sources,74 an explanation rehearsed by 1 Tim 69

See KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 34–35. He notes that the passage not only denies Adam’s participation in transgression, but also omits Eve’s persuading him to eat, a detail that could have offered the author a good argument for the prohibition on teaching. He argues therefore that the reference to the woman being seduced strengthens the Schmuck-Paränese, not women’s silencing, a deduction that will not be followed here (35–39, 50–53). 70 Cf. LSJ, s.v. E v xapata,w appears twice in the LXX, in Exod 8,25 (the Pharaoh deceives the Israelites and obstructs their departure) and in Dan 13,56 (the first elder lets himself be seduced by Susanna’s beauty). This shows that the verb may, but need not refer to sexual seduction. 71 SCHRAGE, 1 Kor I, 311–312; LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 91. 72 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 344–358. 73 kai. th/j a`gno,thtoj is omitted by a2 H Y 0121 0243 1739 1881 Ù b f* vg syp JulCCl, but it appears in the most important witnesses (P46 a* B and other) . 74 KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 41–44 (paralleled with 4 Macc 18,7–9a, pleading for the sexual nature of Eve’s seduction in both 2 Cor 11,3 and 1 Tim 2,14); cf. already DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

247

2,14, which would claim that Adam was not deceived (sexually).75 Without any doubt avpata,w has erotic overtones in some LXX texts, in Hellenistic and early Jewish literature.76 However, this assumption is neither compelling, nor necessary.77 vApata,w may well be used in its general sense of misleading someone. Paul, speaking of the possible corruption of the community by apostles teaching a different doctrine, refers to the deception of Eve and of Christians’ in a metaphorical sense. Eve was deceived to break God’s commandment and thus her faithfulness to God (not Adam!). Likewise the opponents may induce the community to break their fidelity to Christ. Although 2 Cor 11,3 explicitly refers to Eve’s seduction by the serpent, it is unlikely that Paul ascribes a greater responsibility to Eve in the fall. He applies here the marriage symbolism: over Christ, the Groom, the community is represented by a female character (the Bride, v. 2).78 This explains the reference to Eve being seduced. It also evokes Israel’s infidelity to the divine Groom, a motif common in prophetic literature.79 Therefore the danger of being deceived is not necessarily presented as a female trait, since the whole community can be led astray.80 Further, describing the fallen human condition, Paul commonly refers to Adam, in his Adam-Christ antithetical parallelism (1 Cor 15,21–22.45–49; Rom 5,12–14.16–19).81 While Paul fears that the community as a whole may be deceived, 1 Timothy

48. The argument is taken over by MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 348. More cautiously THRALL, 2 Cor, 662–663. 75 KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 34–36, followed by WAGENER, Ordnung, 105–106, and to some extent by ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 139, MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 344–345. Because of this interpretation Küchler connects v. 14 to the Schmuck-Paränese, and not to the prohibition to teach. Wagener follows Küchler, yet she rightly remarks the unitary character of the passage, noting that the whole envisages well-to-do, independent women who claim a position in the community (p. 111). Küchler’s connection is not convincing. Kai, shows that v. 14 is a continuation of the point in v. 13, and the latter is clearly the argument for v. 12, not for v. 9. See H. MARSHALL, PE, 460–461, MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 351 (v. 14 as argument for the prohibition to teach). 76 As extensively shown by KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 36–50. 77 HÄFNER is rightly sceptical (“Nützlich zur Belehrung”, 133–134). 78 SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Memory, 234–235; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 349, n. 284. 79 THRALL, 2 Cor II, 661; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 349. Israel’s involvement in foreign cults ( i.e. in heterodoxy) is commonly described in the OT as breaking marital fidelity to YHWH. Hosea’s marriage highlights the double-entendre of “prostitution”; compare Jer 2–3 and Ezek 16. Therefore the NT metaphor of breaking fidelity does not need a sexual interpretation of such infidelity in the OT pre-text. (Even in these texts fornication stands for idolatry). 80 Though it is always a female character, Eve or Israel, that symbolises marital and religious infidelity. 81 Rightly ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 140, who notes that in Paul’s view all humans without exception are affected by Adam’s sin.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

248

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

modifies the Pauline pre-text – only women may be deceived, while men are exempt.82 Since 1 Tim 2,14 relies on 2 Cor 11,3, it is more than likely that 1 Timothy uses evxapata,w in a metaphorical sense, given the context of the latter passage. Within a debate over women’s role in the community and their function as teachers the author argues that women easily fall pray to deceit (possibly to the teaching of the opponents), and therefore they are not suited for teaching.83 The absolution of Adam may be explained without a sexual interpretation of the fall. The claim that he was not deceived reflects a common procedure of midrashic exegesis that takes sentences out of their context, using them to make a very different point. In Gen 3 Adam does not say that he was deceived, while Eve does. The conclusion may easily be that if he did not say so, he was not deceived.84 The point of such an assertion is that Eve, and subsequently women are weaker in nature than men. Eve was not only deceived, but she also transgressed God’s commandment and entered an enduring state of transgressor (evn paraba,sei ge,gonen).85 This assertion proves that Adam is here absolved from blame (not only from not being deceived), since the text has no reference to him breaking the same commandment.86

82

Appropriately noted by MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 350–351. Rightly ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 139. H. MARSHALL notes the common concern of the two passages with false teaching, but doubts that 1 Tim argues for women’s greater weakness and liability to deception, given the positive assessment of women’s teaching role elsewhere in the PE (PE, 465–466). His perception is far too optimistic. The argument from heresy is unconvincing, because it would then prohibit women from teaching heresy in public, but not so in private. 84 Though a late witness, this is precisely how Chrysostom explains the text (Hom. 9 in 1 Tim, PG 62, 545, NPNF 13, 435–436). The man did not literally assert: “the woman deceived me”. Only of the woman it is told that she saw the tree was good to eat, which means that the woman was captivated by her appetite (evpiqumi,a), while the man merely transgressed because of her persuasion. Admitting that “the woman gave me and I ate” does not qualify as deception. In his view it is not the same to be beguiled by someone of the same kind (para. th/j o`mofu,lou kai. suggenou/j), by a free person (evleuqe,ra), as the man was, or by an inferior and subordinate animal (para. qhri,ou, tou/ dou,lou, tou/ u`potetagme,nou), as the woman was. Elsewhere he states that the woman’s fault is much more serious, that when compared to it the man’s cannot be regarded a sin, a point he makes by citing 1 Tim 2,14 (Ep. 10.3a, Lettres à Olympias, 248/249). For Theodoretus “Adam was not deceived” means that he was not deceived first, and it was not he who picked the fruit (1 Tim, ad 1 Tim 3,14, PG 81, 651). MONTAGUE has a similar explanation, puzzling to a modern reader’s mind, that may have been nevertheless close to the argument of the author: “Adam was not deceived; he just did it” (1–2 Tim, 67, emphases in the original). 85 H. MARSHALL, PE, 464. 86 HÄFNER, “Nützlich zur Belehrung”, 155; pace ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 140. 83

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

249

3.5.4.4 Jewish models for the relecture of the fall? The deceivable nature of the woman is a common motif in apocrypha and Hellenistic Jewish authors and for that reason 1 Tim 2,14 is often paralleled with such interpretations.87 Yet, the parallels are not too close. 1 Enoch merely notes that Gadre’el led Eve astray,88 otherwise the theme of the fall is not prominent.89 Jubilees is rather faithful to the biblical account, except that it has Eve realising her nakedness first, nevertheless giving Adam to eat from the fruit.90 Sir 25,24 regards the woman as the source of evil and considers her role in the fall to be the cause of death (avpo. gunaiko.j avrch. a`marti,aj kai. diV auvth.n avpoqnh,|skomen pa,ntej).91 The meaning of the verse is contested and not everyone agrees that it actually refers to Gen 3,92 but, at least for the Greek version, there can be little doubt about this connection. One of the most negative images of Eve is provided by the Greek Life of Adam and Eve93 that assesses the consequences of the fall, depicting Adam’s disease, toils and death as a direct consequence of Eve’s deed.94 She is repeatedly blamed and blames herself for the evil done to Adam and to all humans. As opposed to the narrative in Gen, Adam is said to have been absent when the serpent deceived Eve. Moreover, she persuades Adam to eat after she becomes aware of the deception and its consequences.95 In this latter 87

SPICQ, Épîtres I, 381; QUINN, WACKER, 1–2 Tim, 229–230; FIORE, PE, 68. 1 En 69,6. 89 J. COLLINS, “Before the Fall”, 304–308. 90 Jub 3,21. VAN RUITEN could be right that her covering her nakedness before his eyes were open stresses that he did not see his wife naked (Primaeval History, 96). Even so, she becomes aware of the change, and yet gives Adam the fruit. He is also right that Jub minimises the negative aspects of the Eden-narrative, especially by putting forward a more positive image of Adam (109–110). 91 MIDDENDORP, Stellung, 26; J. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 67; ID., “Marriage, Divorce”, 143; ID., “Ecclesiasticus”, 684 (adding the parallel from 4Q184). 92 Because of the context Jack LEVISON takes it to refer to the evil wife who causes the perdition of her husband (“Is Eve to Blame?”, 617–623). Yet, J. COLLINS notes the emphasis on death as a universal phenomenon, and not on the death of the sinner (“Ecclesiasticus”, 684). ELLIS, based on a detailed semantic analysis, argues that the Hebrew text is unlikely to refer to Eve, but should rather be seen as an allusion to Pandora (“Is Eve the ‘Woman’ in Sirach 25:24?”, 723–742). 93 The GLAE was thought to depend on a first-century Jewish (Hebrew or Aramaic) original. See the discussion of the hypothesis and its rejection by KNITTEL, Das griechische ‘Leben Adams und Evas’, 46–52. Today most scholars plead for a Greek original: DE JONGE, TROMP, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature, 67; DE JONGE, “The Literary Development of the Life of Adam and Eve”, 239; KNITTEL, 52; MEISER, “Ätiologie und Paränese”, 201. For the text: TROMP, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek (2005); John LEVISON, Texts in Transition. The Greek Life of Adam and Eve (2000). 94 GLAE 7,1–3; 9,2; 14,2–25,4; 32,1–2; see also 10,1–11,3: she is responsible for the altered relationship between humans and animals. In Levison’s text form I (mss. D/Ambrosiana, C 237 Inf., and Strasbourg/S/Argentoratum, 1913) Adam’s toils are a direct consequence of Eve’s deed (9,2; the end is missing from later mss.). Note the division of the Paradise into a male and a female space (15,3). 95 GLAE 15,2; 20,1–21,5. I do not think that 20,1–4 and 27,2 exonerate Eve, pace John LEVISON, Texts, 40–41. By having Adam absent, the narrative puts the entire blame on Eve who persuades him 88

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

250

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

detail the narrative comes close to Jub 3,21. Conversely, in 2 Esdr Adam has an evil heart; he has transgressed and was overcome.96 The early second century CE 2 Baruch repeatedly emphasises the responsibility of Adam.97 Philo interpretes the passage allegorically. He identifies man with the mind (nou/j), woman with sense-perception (aivsqh,sij) and regards the serpent as the mediator of h`donh,, in a reading reflecting a very low esteem for women.98 The serpent addresses the woman and not the man because: woman is more accustomed to be deceived than man. For his judgement, like his body, is masculine, and is capable of dissolving or destroying the designs of deception; but the judgement of the woman is more feminine, and because of softness she easily gives way and is taken in by plausible falsehoods which resemble truth.99

The man (not the woman) is first mentioned to have hidden after the transgression because: it was the more imperfect and ignoble element, the female, that made a beginning of transgression and lawlessness, while the male made the beginning of reverence and modesty and all good, since he was better and more perfect.100

God questions Adam after the transgression, not the woman, because she is not deemed worthy, “although she was the beginning of evil and led him into after becoming aware of the deception. Adam’s taking full responsibility (27,2) shows his magnanimity. Levison’s text form II (mss. R/Vaticanus, 1192 and M/Patmos, 447) adds to her blame, including her second failure to fast and repent by the Tigris, while Adam, praying in the Jordan, in the circle of angels, is impervious to temptation (29,7–13). That Satan appeared to her as an angel may mitigate her fault, but the reader remembers that at her first temptation he used a similar guise. For a more differentiated treatment of the exoneration: LEVISON, “Exoneration and Denigration”, 251–275. 96 2 Esdr 3,21. 97 2 Bar 48,42; 54,15; 56,6, moreover he becomes the type of the eternal human (54,19), or at least the text puts greater emphasis on individual responsibility. 98 LA 2, 49, with 3,61: the woman “gave” to the man, and the serpent “beguiled” (hvpathke,nai) the woman, because “to give is characteristic to sense-perception but to cheat and beguile of pleasure with its serpent-like subtlety”); Cher. 57–62; Op. 151 (sexual pleasure as beginning of wrongs and transgression of the law), 157 (the serpent as symbol of h`donh,; the dark side of pleasure), cf. also 161, and 165 (pleasure may reach the mind only via sense-perception, just as the serpent deceived the man through the woman). 99 QG 1.33 (transl. Marcus); compare SC 34A, 100/101: “Mulier autem consuevit potius quam vir decipi. Hujus enim consilium, sicut et corpus, masculinum est, et sufficiens ad solvandam sententiam seductionis; mulieris autem magis effeminatum, ita ut propter mollitiem facile concedit, et captatur falsitate persuasiva, veri similitudinem imitante.” (The Greek text was not preserved.) 100 QG 1.43 (transl. Marcus); compare SC 34A, 108/109: “Initium praevaricandi peccadique in legem facit imperfecta et prava (natura) femina; erubescendi vero pudendique, immo totius boni, mas, utpote melius et perfectius (opus).” Cf. QG 1.37–38: from a literal viewpoint the woman ate first and than gave to the man to show that man rules over immortality and everything good, woman over death and everything vile. Allegorically: “mulier est symbolice sensus, et vir intellectus”. Of necessity reason comes into contact with the perceptible world through senses.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

251

a life of vileness”. Allegorically this detail means that reason, the ruling or male principle, introduces the vice, i.e. the female part or perception, when listening to someone else.101 Declining responsibility in Gen 3,12–13 is understood to show that the woman is by nature more easily deceived instead of having great thoughts, while the man is just the opposite.102 In his account of the fall Josephus comes close to the biblical narrative, but omits from Adam’s justification the reference to God having given him the woman, probably in order to exonerate God from any shadow of blame. Adam is punished because he gave in to a woman’s counsel.103 It is difficult to tell whether some of these works were known to the author of 1 Timothy. The answer is probably negative. It seems unlikely that Philo has influenced him.104 Except for the emphatic blame on Eve and woman’s greater liability to be deceived, there are no thematic or verbal connections, nor similarities in interpretative patterns (there is no sign of allegorical interpretation in 1 Tim, hence no allusion to the nou/j-aivsqh,sij pair).105 Jubilees is earlier, but rather moderate, just as 1 Enoch. The dependence of the GLAE on a first-century Jewish original that would have made it or the Greek translation roughly contemporaneous with the PE,106 is no longer held. Even the Jewish origin107 has been challenged, just as the early dating.108 Thus one can hardly be sure that this writing was available at all to the author. It seems likely that various one-sided reinterpretations of the story of the fall circulated at the turn of the century. A literary dependence on these 101 QG 1.45 (transl. Marcus); SC 34A, 110/111 (“Mulierem vero interrogare minime dignatus est, tamquam principium mali, et ducem ei turpis vitae factam”). 102 QG 1.46 (transl. Marcus); SC 34A, 112/113: “mulier solet potius decipi, quam majora quaedam cogitare; vir autem e contra.” 103 Jos., Ant. 1.48–49. In his description of the Essenes, embodying a Stoic model of holiness, temperance, self-restraint, rejection of pleasures and control of passions, he notes that they disdain marriage not in itself, but because they want to keep themselves away from the licentiousness of women (avselgei,a), thinking that none could remain faithful (Bell. 2.119–120). 104 RUNIA thinks that it has not been proven beyond doubt that the Apologists knew Philo (he seems to admit an influence on Justin and Theophilus; Philo in Early Christian Literature, 335). It is therefore even less probable that he was available to the author of 1 Timothy. As to the interpretation of the Eden-narrative, Runia finds no direct influence of “Philo’s amalgam of specific themes here [Opif. 151–152], i.e. sexual desire, pleasure, the end of the good life and the beginning of misery and wretchedness” (Creation, 361). This is true for 1 Tim, but less defendable for later authors. 105 TOWNER notes the differences between 1 Tim 2,14 and Philo; Philo emphasises the weakness of human nature, and less on Eve’s deception as such (Letters, 230). 106 QUINN, WACKER parallel the LAE with 1 Tim 2,14 and date it to the late 1st century (1–2 Tim, 230). 107 MEISER places its origin in the Greek-speaking Jewish environment; “Ätiologie und Paränese”, 201. 108 DE JONGE, TROMP, The Life of Adam (1997), 66–77 (a date between 100–600 CE); DE JONGE, “Christian Origin”, 347–363.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

252

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

cannot be established. The immediate source of 1 Tim 2,14 was probably 2 Cor 11,3. The author developed further the interpretation of the fall, possibly based on contemporary traditions about women as the source of evil. These may have been Jewish traditions, but Greek myths that associated suffering and evil with the (creation of the) woman could have also played a role. Of these, the myth of Pandora is the most important. All the more so, since, as John Collins notes, “[t]here is no precedent in Hebrew tradition for the view that woman is the source of all evil, but there is a clear Greek precedent in the story of Pandora’s box”.109 3.5.4.5 Excursus. Religious narratives legitimising exclusion As shown above, 1 Tim 2,13–14 provides a religious legitimation for women’s exclusion from teaching. The author uses the Jewish(-Christian) account of the creation and fall, advancing a one-sided relecture of Gen 2–3: the woman is inferior to the man because of her second rank in creation and because of her fallen nature. The Edennarrative functions analogously to a myth that explains and legitimises the existing social order, in particular, the subordination of women.110 This point will be developed here, by addressing the broader theme of ancient myths, commonly used in antiquity to achieve the same goal. My contention is that 1 Timothy recurs to a widespread procedure in antiquity, which involves the legitimation of social order by means of aetiological-mythical accounts showing that certain conditions exist since the beginning of time and are rooted in divine will or in primaeval events. The religious legitimation of ecclesial regulations is also part of the ideological dimension of the PE (ĺ1.2.1). In his essay on Athenian women, John Gould has shown that Greek myths epitomise male anxieties related to women; these fears are checked by custom and law providing for the seclusion and legal exclusion of women.111 Myths offer an ambivalent view on women. These are associated both with life and domesticity and with untamed and destructive forces. They are often perceived as harmful and threatening the social order.112 To put it differently, myths about the threatening nature of women not only express male fears, but they also explain and legitimise the restrictions imposed on women via custom and law. By using Gen 2–3 to legitimise women’s exclusion from teaching, 1 Tim 2,11–15 reflects a similar view on women as threatening the order of the community, through their unreliable, deceptive nature. The story of the creation and fall 109

“Ecclesiasticus”, 685. Rightly METTINGER, The Eden Narrative, 73. 111 GOULD, “Law”, 55. 112 “Women are not part of, do not belong easily in, the male ordered world of the ‘civilised’ community; […]they threaten continually to overturn its stability or subvert its continuity, to break out of the place assigned to them by their partial incorporation within it. Yet they are essential to it: they are producers and bestowers of wealth and children, the guarantors of due succession, the guardians of the oikos and its hearth. Men are their sons, and are brought up, as children, by them and among them. Like the earth and once-wild animals, they must be tamed and cultivated by men, but their ‘wildness’ will out” (GOULD, “Law”, 57, emphases added). Also A. BROWN, “Aphrodite”, 26–47. 110

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

253

thus becomes an instrument of the strategy aiming to keep women in their place. The discussion will focus on the Pandora-myth, as an eminent expression of such anxieties associated with women. This myth is chosen due to its similarities with the account in Gen 2–3. More specifically, the creation of the woman and her influence on the man is connected with the beginning of human distress and possibly of death.113 No doubt, the Pandora-myth differs in significant ways from the biblical account of the creation and fall. But the focus here will be on the common mythical theme of evil associated in one way or another with women. Several other mythical characters typifying female deception could be discussed, but I shall focus on Pandora because, as the first created woman, she largely corresponds to Eve. The Pandora-myth has influenced both Jewish and Christian tradition, and Christian writers associated Eve with Pandora quite early.114 Hesiod’s Pandora is the very source of evil for men. The myth appears to suggest that the world of humans is initially male,115 and the creation of the woman comes after Prometheus’ challenge to Zeus’ unperishable wisdom.116 The unnamed woman of Theogony, Pandora in Works, combines an earthly nature, divine beauty, the image of a modest virgin (parqe,noj aivdoi/h),117 and exercises an irresistible attraction on man.118 Works is more negative in her depiction: she is endowed with “a shameless 113 The two versions of the myth are narrated in Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days. On the myth: VERNANT, Myth, 184–201; KIRK, Myth, 229–232; BREMMER, “Pandora or the Creation of a Greek Eve”, 18–33. On the ideology of the Pandora-representation of the Parthenon: HURWIT, “Beautiful Evil”, 171–186 (the seducing woman, the source of evil, reminds contemplators of the need to strengthen control over women, an idea reinforced by her depiction in the vicinity of the androgyne-like Athena, supporter of the male rule of Zeus). For a comparison between creation myths, focusing on the role of the woman, see KÜBEL, “Eva, Pandora”, 13–20. 114 On the connection between Ben Sira’s view of women as a source of evil and the Pandoramyth: MIDDENDORP, Stellung, 21, 26. For patristic, rabbinic and literary associations between Pandora and Eve: BUTLER, “Tertullian’s Pandora”, 325–342; LACHS, “The Pandora-Eve Motif in Rabbinic Literature”, 341–345; see also J. COLLINS, “Ecclesiasticus”, 685. 115 Paus. 1.24.7. See also PHILIPS, “Narrative Compression”, 294. The matter is not explicit. Theogony does not narrate the creation of humans; they are simply presupposed to exist as mortal men. 116 Theog. 545–546, 550 passim. Taking the portion given to him, Zeus has punishment in mind: he thinks evil against mortal men (551–552). Whether this refers to the creation of the woman is uncertain, as Theog. continues with the stealth of the fire, Prometheus’ utmost challenge (561–570), and later on the woman is described as the price of this blessing (585). In Op. the stealth of the fire (42–59) seems to be the only reason for creating Pandora. (Op. 57: avnti. puro.j dw,sw kako,n; the trickery over sacrifices is only alluded to in l. 48). The refrain-like idea is that Zeus may not be deceived, nor can his will be broken (Theog. 613–616; Op. 105). In the original version of the aetiological myth of the sacrifices (in Theog.), Zeus may have been tricked, and the formula is meant to save Zeus’ omniscience (WEST, Theogony, 321, at 551). The originally independent myth was introduced to the story to provide a reason for Zeus withholding the fire (PHILIPS, “Narrative Compression”, 293–296). Hesiod would then also be responsible for inserting the creation of the woman in the Prometheus-myth(s). The latter must have also been an independent myth (KÜBEL, “Eva”, 15–16). 117 Theog. 572; parqenikh/j kalo.n ei=doj in Op. 63. 118 In the Op. her creation is detailed. Athena teaches her the female skills. Other divine beings are active in her adornment (60–82), an indispensible instrument of female seduction. Aphrodite has a major role in making her seductive. She bears a golden crown with “many creatures which the land and sea rear up, […] wonderful things, like living beings with voices” (Theog. 578–584).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

254

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

mind and a deceitful nature”.119 Speech has a prominent role in deceit: she receives voice (fwnh,, 79), as well as lying and flattering words (yeu,dea, qV ai`muli,ouj lo,gouj, 78).120 Pandora’s name alludes to the gifts with which she was endowed (Op. 80–82), but it possibly recalls an earlier version of the myth, where she is a mother-goddess or earth-goddess, the mother of the living, bestowing life and bounty.121 In the Theogony the creation of the woman is followed by the misogynistic summary on women’s evil nature: the creation of the first woman is seen as the origin of “the deadly race of women”, to the great trouble of men. Women are drones staying at home, while men toil to feed them; they are an economic burden.122 Zeus “made women to be an evil to mortal men (a;ndressi kako.n qnhtoi/si gunai/kaj).”123 Though evil and expensive, women are needed to bear children that will take care of men in their old age.124 This is “the male dilemma over women, poised between the conflicting desires for sexual gratification and domestic stability.”125 The deceiving nature of women is an issue in Works as well (mh. de. gunh, se no,on pugosto,loj evxapata,tw [!]).126 The motif of the jar appears only here.127 Pandora’s jar pours out all diseases and evils, just as Eve causes the entrance of pain and toil into the world. Pandora seems to put an end to the life of bliss, free of toil, enjoyed by Golden Age humans.128 The ambivalent representation of the woman is not particular to Hesiod.129 Yet, his depiction is by far the most negative – women are not only deceitful and evil by nature, but even their labour is downgraded and their confinement to the house is ironically a sign of idleness.130 119

ku,neon no,on kai. evpi,klopon h=qoj, lit. the mind of a bitch and the character of a thief, 67, 78. On the seducing nature of female speech: MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 62–68. 121 O’BRIEN, “Mami, Eve and Pandora”, 35–45; KÜBEL, “Eva”, 16, n. 15 (cf. Schol. Aristoph., Av. 971); both parallel Pandora’s and Eve’s name. The animal-imagery on the crown, beyond a relation to the funerary bands from Athens and Eretria (WEST, Theogony, 328) may hint at Pandora as mother of the living and perhaps to the primeval relationship between humans and animals. Note that these creatures are wondrous and voiced (584). The animal world also appears in Gilgamesh and in Gen 2. Enkidu lives in close connection with the animals, until love with Šamhat estranges him from them. In Gen 2 the ’ƗdƗm is first envisaged in his relation with the animals, until the woman turns out to be the true companion. 122 Theog. 590–599. 123 Theog. 600–603 (transl. West, modified). On a comparable association of women with evil for men: Athen., Deipn. 13.8 (quoting Aristophon, Menander and Carcinus). 124 Theog., 603–611. 125 A. BROWN, “Aphrodite”, 26. 126 Op. 373–375. The economic implications of female seduction are obvious, just as in the drone-comparison of the Theogony. 127 Op. 90–105. A. BROWN notes:“[h]er action is an explanatory doublet of her husband’s, for the jar is to her what she is to Epimetheus – both husband and wife are prompted by an unwise impulse to involve themselves in something they falsely believe will be to their advantage.” (“Aphrodite”, 30). 128 Op. 109–182 recounts the creation of the five races of humans after the Pandora-myth. 129 GOULD noted that women’s ambivalent depiction is not specific to Greek culture (“Law”, 57). In Gilgamesh, that very likely influenced Gen 2–3, Šamhat is similarly equivocal. She is probably a cultic prostitute of the Ištar-temple, sent by the semi-divine Gilgamesh to be Enkidu’s sexual partner and tamer. Her very name suggests beauty, desirability and wellbeing (GEORGE, Gilgamesh, I, 148). She removes the man from his natural-animalic environment by seducing and civilizing him, and eventually, even when obliquely, causes his perdition. 130 “The end result is to make Pandora into a much more negative figure than, say, Eve in 120

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

255

The differences from the Genesis-account are significant. The positioning of the Pandora-story as a sequel to the Prometheus-myths shows that in Hesiod the creation of the woman is intended ab initio to punish men. Pandora is from the very beginning conceived by the gods as evil (kalo.n kako,n, Theog. 585). Conversely, in the biblical account the woman is introduced as a helper and fulfiller and causes the misery of the man only secondarily, being herself persuaded by an intruder. Both narratives agree about the attraction woman exerts on man. Yet, while in Genesis desire pertains (at least initially) to a harmonious relationship and the woman is worth being the object of desire, Pandora’s charm is evil and quasi-pathologically irresistible. Pandora is the beautiful evil to whom Epimetheus cannot resist; she is a fatal gift and a wonder to gods and men.131 Her lure is largely due to her marvellous adornment, gold playing a major role. In Genesis the woman is said to wield attraction merely due to her being of the same substance as man; the motif of female adorning, in its symbolic and economic dimension, plays no role. The fall in both cases is mediated by the woman, as a result of her inquisitiveness (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil may correspond to some extent to the opening of the jar). In Genesis it is humans’ defiance that causes their misery. In the Theogony suffering is caused by the rebellion of the semi-divine Prometheus against fellow-god(s); men both gain from his audacity and fall victim to it. Both the stealth of the fire and the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, although in different manners, associate woman with the fall on the one hand and with the beginning of civilisation on the other.132 It is more difficult to tell whether death is directly associated with the woman.133 In Gen 2,7 the human being is earthly, frail, endowed with life only as a special gift of God and death does not occur as an immediate consequence of fall. Commentators argue for death being the natural condition of man, or even the end of his toil.134 In Hesiod’s Theogony, men are explicitly said to be mortal, while in Works only toils and diseases seem to be attributed to Pandora.135 To be sure, however, the woman’s role is Genesis, for […] the poet systematically downgrades any function which women might have in his world: having denied them any usefulness as workers, he also suppresses anything positive that might have been said about their reproductive function as well, thus reducing marriage to a sort of one-way, purely economic transaction.” BROWN, “Aphrodite”, 28. 131 Theog. 588. For the initially positive function of Pandora as bride and as mother of humans, see KÜBEL, “Eva”, 16–17, drawing from Pheidias’ representation on the Parthenon. 132 The motif is ancient, occurring in the Gilgamesh as well. Through Enkidu’s (sexual) encounter with the woman he is detached from his natural environment (animals reject him), he eats the bread and drinks the beer she gives him, both products of labour, takes up clothes and departs for the city, an epitome of civilisation. Near death he curses the woman who changed his life and indirectly caused his perdition, but eventually blesses her for initiating him into heroic life. See Gilgamesh I, 140–145; 161–166; 178–225; II, 29–36; VII, 101–123 (very fragmentary), 127– 131, 132–161 (The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, ed. GEORGE). 133 In Gilgamesh Enkidu is a mortal human. His death is only indirectly caused by Šamhat, who leads him to the road to civilisation (yet, the same advice brings him the friendship of Gilgamesh). 134 WESTERMANN, Gen I/1, 281,362–363; WENIN, “La question de l’humain”, 12. 135 Theog., 560, passim; Works, 90–94. Yet, on the association between the creation of woman and the emergence of death: VERNANT, “Feminine Figures”, 98.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

256

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

at least ambivalent with this respect as well; she is a source of life and grief and probably, even when only indirectly, an instrument of death. To summarise, the woman is an ambivalent character in mythology. She attracts the man, is the source of life, a necessary evil needed for the purpose of procreation. Her proximity is a threat to man and a source of distress. She is deceptive by nature and unreliable. Speech is an eminent expression of deception. This representation legitimises the social and legal regulations which keep women in their place. In Genesis Eve is, like her fellows in myths, an ambivalent character. She is God’s creation and gift, but also the one who offers the man the forbidden fruit of knowing good and evil and indirectly effects the entrance of pain and toil into the world. She is the helpmate of the man, the mother of the living,136 possibly playing a role in acquiring civilisation and wisdom.137 In spite of her role in infringing the divine commandment, she is viewed more positively than the Greek Pandora. Nonetheless, effective history will turn Eve in an eminently negative character, a type of the deceived deceiver.

3.5.4.6 Summary The reception history of the narrative of the fall turns Eve into the seduced seducer that causes the perdition of man and of all humankind. In the course of its reinterpretation the rather sober narrative of Genesis that never actually describes Eve as “seducing” or “persuading” Adam, is heavily supplied with details from imagination, a process that starts with Jewish relectures, and continues through early Christian readings.138 In this process of turning Eve into an eminently negative character 1 Timothy has a non-negligeable contribution. We cannot know whether the author was influenced by Jewish sources or by the myth of Pandora, when proposing an essentially grim view of Eve.139 What matters is that this negative image of the first woman is applied to women as such and turned into an ideological instrument of exclusion. The sole optimistic element left over is that of motherhood. One cannot argue for a direct dependence of 1 Tim 2,14 on any of the Jewish sources that emphasise Eve’s eminent deceivability. It is very well possible that different traditions on the topic circulated in Hellenistic Judaism and were reproduced in various ways in Philo, 2 Cor 11,3 and 1 Tim 2,14. It is likely that 1 Tim draws on 2 Cor 11,3, not on Jewish sources, 136 And not merely of all humans. Noted by KUBEL, “Eva”, 16, n. 15. It is difficult to tell whether Eve, the mother of the living, was indeed a demoted mother-goddess, as were Nammu, Mami and probably Pandora, as argued by O’BRIEN, “Mami”, 35–45. 137 When one regards the mythical parallels and the relecture of the knowledge of good and evil as wisdom in Sir 17,6. Compare Prov 3,13–18: wisdom as the tree of life. 138 A good overview of this process was given by HIGGINS, “The Myth of Eve”, 639–647. 139 The knowledge of the myth is not impossible, given its availability in the Greek-speaking world. The association between Eve and Pandora is attested in Christian sources as early as Tert., Cor. 7.3; Val. 12.4; Orig., Cels. 4.38.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

257

amplifying Eve’s guilty gullibility (which is not the main point for Paul) and turns it into a condition said to be universally relevant for women. The narrative of the fall in 1 Tim 2,14 is meant to legitimise woman’s subordination; she has proved to be weak and as a consequence of her being deceived, God submitted her to the man. The issue at stake is therefore again that of authority – woman needs to submit to man not only because she is the second created and thus inferior, but also because of the divine will that subordinates her to the man (cf. Gen 3,16: auvto,j sou kurieu,sei). Under these circumstances the ktisiological and the hamartiological argument bolster the same idea – a woman may not possess authority, but should be ruled by the man. From her creation she is derived from the man and thus inferior. Her created inferiority and her weakness in the fall lead to her subordination to the man. Submission is thus rooted in the divine will. Authority may be exercised lawfully only by the man and the woman should refrain from any activity that would place her in a position of authority in the community and in the oikos; this would mean the reversal of this divine order. The relecture of 2 Cor 11,2–3 by 1 Tim 2,14–15 may also have countered the ascetic tendencies very likely present among the opponents.140 As reception-history shows, 2 Cor 11,2 was understood to promote sexual asceticism and this was very likely the case already at the turn of the century. The relecture of Gen 3,13.16 in 1 Tim 2,14–15 may have occasioned a “correction” of such an ascetic reading of 2 Cor 11,2–3, establishing that childbearing remained women’s eminent role and their specific way to salvation. 3.5.5 Female teachers of female virtues In spite of the prohibition in 1 Tim 2,12 concerning public teaching, instruction carried out by women is not altogether dismissed in the PE. The one instance in Tit 2,4–5 where older women are encouraged to instruct younger women in prudence (swfroni,zw), to advise and urge141 them to carry out their traditional gender role shows that at least in special cases women are regarded as being able to perform a sort of teaching function. For this reason the prohibition to teach issued in 1 Tim 2,12 is sometimes contrasted with the injunction that older women should be kalodida,skaloi (Tit 2,3).142 Yet, the circumstances, the gender of the listeners and the content of this instruction 140

As rightly argued by MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 352–358; EAD., “Pure Bride”, 131–147. BDAG, s.v. swfroni,zw; also to “bring to one’s senses” (tina,); Demosth. 25, 93; Dio Chrys. 17 [34], 49), “to instruct in prudence or behavior that is becoming and shows good judgment, encourage, advise, urge”. 142 H. MARSHALL, PE, 455. 141

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

258

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

show the limits of this pursuit, as does the ideological thrust of this advice. There is nothing in the context to suggest that such teaching should be carried out in public, although an all-female community may be envisaged. More significantly, the content of this instruction does not encompass doctrinal matters, but addresses exclusively moral and practical issues, concerning the attitude required from women in the oikos: love for husband (filandri,a) and children (filotekni,a), self-control and chastity (swfrosu,nh, a`gnei,a), domesticity and dedication to household duties (oivkour[g]i,a),143 and submission (u`potagh,) toward the husband. These are the qualities of the ideal woman.144 As shown earlier, these particular expectations are absolutely common in ancient exhortations to women, in moral-philosophical and economical treatises discussing female roles. The exhortation to older women is not meant to recognise women as teachers properly speaking, but is part of the author’s strategy to promote compliance with traditional gender roles. In this case, talking “from woman to woman” has an added power of persuasion: it rests on the premise of shared female experience, of an internal perspective on the female condition and a better understanding thereof. Who else can know better the life and tasks of a woman than another woman, who is more experienced, a wife and mother herself? Moreover, a fellow woman may not be suspected of partiality to the advantage of men. By demanding them to instruct their younger fellows, the official expresses his confidence in the capacities of these experienced women. These will therefore perceive their task as a distinction. Such positive experience will reinforce their compliance with the role of teachers of traditional morality and their dedication toward the leader of the community. Such strategy is not particular to the PE. Its most typical expression may be found in the fictitious Neopythagorean letters and treatises purportedly written by eminent women, in response to domestic problems with which younger women struggle.145 Theano instructs Kallisto about the way she should deal with her servants and manage her household.146 A young woman should learn from the elder to manage the household. Perictione, possibly identified with the mother of Plato,147 stresses that: 143

BDAG, s.v. oivkourgo,j (oivkouro,j is more common, and oivkourgo,j occurrs only as a v.l. in Soranus, Gynaec. 1.27.3.4: women lead a domestic and sedentary life; ed. ILBERG). 144 Philo, Exsecr. 139: “They will also see their wives […], their modest, domestic, affectionate wives (sw,fronaj kai. oivkourou.j kai. fila,ndrouj), insulted […].”; Dio Cass., Hist. 56.3.3: “For is there anything better than a wife who is chaste domestic, a good house-keeper, a rearer of children (a;riston gunh. sw,frwn oivkouro.j oivkono,moj paidotro,foj); […]?” 145 For the fictitious character of the situations and of the authors: STÄDELE, 252–253. On these exhortations see also BALCH, “Neopythagorean Moralists”, 380–411; WAGENER, Ordnung, 89–92. 146 STÄDELE, 174/175–178/179. 147 THESLEFF, 142.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Teaching and gender in the Pastoral Epistles

259

a woman characterised by harmony should be full of prudence and temperance (fronh,sioj kai. swfrosu,nhj plei,hn). Her soul should be zealous to acquire virtue; so that she may be just, brave, prudent, self-sufficient and hating vainglory. Furnished with these virtues, she will, when she becomes a wife act worthily towards herself, her husband, her children and her household. […] She will not be pursued by illegal loves, but she will be devoted to her husband, children and her household (evj a;ndra te kai. te,kea kai. to.n oi=kon xu,mpanta fili,hn e[xei).148

The exhortation promotes the full commitment of the woman to her husband and children. Phintys, a disciple of Pythagoras, deems that swfrosu,nh enables a woman to honour and love her husband.149 The exposition rehearses the same requirements of marital fidelity and domesticity. A mistress of the household, supervising domestic affairs (oivkode,spoinan kai. prokatezome,nan oi;kw), should be temperate (sw,fron) and undefiled.150 The letter of Melissa to Kleareta envisages the same ideal of the chaste, temperate, submissive wife, pleasing her husband and caring for her household.151 The letters of Theano to Nikostrate and Euridike argue that the wife should tolerate the infidelity of the husband.152 Even under such circumstances the wife should distinguish herself by a well-ordered relationship (euvtaxi,a) to her husband, by care for the household (evpimelei,a pro.j to.n oi=kon), and tender love towards her children (filostorgi,a teri. ta/ te,kna).153 Other records of women teaching women to show modesty are known.154 Wagener argues that using the double fiction of author and addressees and the topos of (elder) women teaching women, Neopythagorean writings respond to the debate on women’s right to practice philosophy. As teachers of virtue, they ostensibly exercise practical philosophy. In reality, however, these writings promote traditional gender roles.155 In an analogous manner Titus recurs to pseudepigraphy and double fiction, applying the same topos. The purported author is Paul, not a female disciple, but in both cases seemingly women instruct women to comply with traditional norms.156 148

A woman should be kind and forbearing toward her husband, prudent, modest, loving her children. Perict., De mul. harm., THESLEFF, 142,18–23; 143,1–3; 144,8–19; GUTHRIE, 239–241. 149 THESLEFF, 152,3–5. 150 THESLEFF, 154,10–11. 151 STÄDELE, 160/161–162/163. He dates it to the 2nd cent. BCE–2nd cent. CE, given its emphasis on female subordination, swfrosu,nh, household management; p. 256). 152 STÄDELE, 170/171–174/175 and 178/179–180/181. 153 STÄDELE, Briefe, 172,30–39. 154 Plutarch claims that his wife, Timoxena, authored a treatise about the love of adornment (peri. filokosmi,aj), addressed to an Aristylla. Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145AB. 155 WAGENER, Ordnung, 90–92, following THRAEDE, Ärger, 67–68. 156 “Only women bound to the oikos life will speak, teach, and learn properly, that is to be silent towards men, not be gossipy in all-female groups, but rather follow domesticated standards” (BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 149).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

260

Motherhood instead of teaching

3.6 Motherhood instead of teaching Although women are excluded from teaching and from holding responsible offices, the PE argue that they may still fulfil a meaningful Christian vocation. Motherhood is the eminent female role (1 Tim 2,15; 5,10.14; Tit 2,4.11; 2 Tim 1,5), a gender-specific way to salvation (in spite of women’s fallen condition). This view is most clearly stated in 1 Tim 2,15, a text that contrasts this accepted female role with the unacceptable function of teaching. This chapter aims at placing the statements on motherhood in their cultural context. The discussion will show that the significance attached to maternity comes close to the ideological representation of this role in ancient sources, aiming at restricting women to the domestic sphere. The valuation of motherhood in these epistles, more specifically its description as a vocation leading to salvation, provides a more positive view on this role compared to most ancient sources. These focus on the father’s role in procreation and education, and depict women as mere instruments of breeding. However, this appraisal of motherhood is used to buttress the ideology of distinct gender roles. Motherhood becomes a substitute for responsible roles in the church, notably for teaching. 3.6.1 Childbearing – the chance of women to overcome their fallen condition 1 Tim 2,15 assigns a salvific role to childbearing. Swqh,setai dia. th/j teknogoni,aj has been interpreted in various ways: as salvation by means of the reparatory pains accompanying birth, salvation by the virginal birth of Mary, deliverance from the physical dangers during childbearing, or from Satan by adhering to one’s gender role.1 I take swthri,a as eschatological salvation, conditioned by fulfilling one’s vocation in this world, and understand dia. th/j teknogoni,aj to mean that women may reach eschatological salvation through motherhood, i.e. by assuming their divinely ordained, 1 For the various meanings proposed for swqh,setai dia. th/j teknogoni,aj, see SPICQ, Épîtres I, 382–383; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 140–141; H. MARSHALL, PE, 467–470; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 296– 300. WINTER’s assumption that the text would refer to women continuing their pregnancy instead of interrupting it is totally unconvincing (Roman Wives, 109–111; cf. also TOWNER, Letters, 235). Ancient criticism of abortion in no way proves that this was the problem with the addressees of 1 Tim 2,15, nor can one take satire to be descriptive of Roman reality. To remain with the epistle, 1 Tim 4,3 refers to an unwillingness to marry, and this means that certain members of the community embraced an ascetic lifestyle. This is a much more plausible reason for encouraging motherhood (1 Tim 2,15; 5,10.14; cf. Tit 2,4), and, of course, marriage (1 Tim 5,14).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

261

gender-specific role.2 The subject of the singular swqh,setai is the generic gunh, in v. 14. The plural mei,nwsin is most likely a generalisation. The clause makes it clear that beside embracing motherhood all women are required to practice Christian and specifically female virtues, namely faith, love and holiness, as well as self-restraint/chastity.3 Motherhood is thus the vocation of Christian women. Women are addressed as responsible moral subjects who may contribute to their salvation through perseverance in a task assigned by God and through the practice of virtues. Merz parallels 1 Tim 2,15 with 4,16 that connects Timothy’s salvation to his accomplishing the task of teaching; childbirth is therefore a soteriological “Sonderweg” to women for whom teaching (a good deed par excellence) is forbidden.4 Some authors object to taking swqh,setai dia. th/j teknogoni,aj in an instrumental sense, as this would imply that someone may reach salvation by carrying out deeds.5 One should not, however, project the theological debate over the salvific role of grace/faith vs. deeds into 1 Timothy. The idea that one may reach salvation by way of completing a specific role may be problematic for exegetes, but not for the author, particularly if one has in view the emphasis on deeds in 1 Timothy.6 At any rate, childbearing in itself is not sufficient, as salvation also requires perseverance in faith, love, holiness and swfrosu,nh. Salvation is not attained through the biological act of birthgiving, but by fulfilling a role assigned by God,7 embedded in a life of Christian abnegation. Teknogoni,a obviously presupposes marriage. A number of authors suggest that teknogoni,a also includes a mothers’ role in raising their children and/or providing for their religious education.8 This may or may not be the case, 2

OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 101, 103; FIORE, PE, 69, 71. On the instrumental sense of dia, with a Gen., BDAG s.v. The authors oscillate between taking 1 Tim 2,15 to refer to attendant or prevailing circumstances or to instrumentality (of efficient cause, via, through), meanings 3.a and b. 3 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 101; H. MARSHALL, PE, 471 (mei,nwsin at least includes women, and it is unlikely to refer to children, who have to be brought to faith and cannot be said to remain in it; moreover swfrosu,nh relates to v. 9 and thus to women), cf. also TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 150; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 302. 4 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 295–296 (childbearing is to women what teaching is to the officeholder: a good deed and a way to salvation). See already SPICQ, Épîtres I, 382: “La femme sera sauvée non en enseignant (IV,16), mais en enfantant”, cf. also 384, 400. 5 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 140–141. H. MARSHALL is somewhat cautious, questioning the instrumentality expressed by dia,; yet he asserts that the epistle sustains the “normativity of childbearing against those who (on whatever basis) deny it” (PE, 470). 6 A pertinent point made by WAGENER, Ordnung, 107–108. R. COLLINS may well have a point when understanding swqh,setai as passivum divinum (1–2 Tim Tit, 76), but in this case one can only wonder how this matches women’s active perseverance in virtue. 7 Rightly OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 104: childbearing means accepting the will of God. 8 BROX, Past, 136; TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 149, n. 182; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 101; H. MARSHALL, PE, 468. SPICQ cites 2 Tim 1,5 as proof for women’s role in the Christian education of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

262

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

since in contemporary mentality education was the task of the father and the mother’s role was largely limited to nurturing her children. In 1 Tim 2,15 de, connects the assertion about salvation through childbearing to the discussion of the fallen female condition (v. 14) and thus shows that teknogoni,a is an allusion to Gen 3,16. Of all the aspects of the “punishment” in Gen 3, 1 Timothy explicitly takes over only the reference to motherhood. Yet, to a reader familiar with the pre-text, this unmarked allusion to Gen 3,16 would have probably brought to mind the other element of “punishment”, namely the subordination of the woman to the man, all the more so as the whole preliminary discussion explicitly tackles male authority and female submission based on the account of the creation and fall.9 1 Timothy proposes once more a relecture of the pre-text. While Gen 3,16 calls attention to the painful dimension of motherhood, here childbearing does not appear as chastisement, but as a valued vocation and a way to salvation.10 Not only are the birthpangs omitted, but the clearly positive element of swthri,a, actually missing from the pre-text, shows that motherhood is not a punishment or an expiation for Eve’s sin.11 Conversely, motherhood becomes a woman’s eminent chance to obtain salvation, her created inferiority and her fallen condition notwithstanding. 1 Tim reaffirms the view that Christian women manifest their faith and love by complying with gender roles resulting from the natural order. As Spicq has noted, normalement une femme est faite pour avoir des enfants. […] Selon cette optique le sens de I Tim. II, 15 est claire : chacun son rôle; la femme n’a pas à jouer le docteur, elle est normalement destinée au mariage (cf. I Cor. VII, 9, 36) et c’est en accomplissant toutes les tâches qu’implique une telle condition qu’elle aboutira au salut, grâce à la pratique persévérante des vertus chrétiennes.12

their children; his other example from 2 Tim 3,14–15 is no proof, since the one from whom Timothy has learnt is Paul, not his mother. See Épîtres I, 391. Childrearing may be supported by the use of teknotrofei/n in 1 Tim 5,10, but education has no solid evidence. 9 HÄFNER rejects the allusion to Gen 3,16 because of the positive connotation of v. 15 (salvation) and because there is no explicit reference to subordination (“Nützlich”, 125–127). None of the objections is compelling. (1) Since the author treats Gen 1–3 with obvious freedom, he can easily reinterpret his pretext in other respects as well. Häfner notes that this could only function as a “correction” of Gen 3,16; and this is, in my view, precisely what it is. (2) Although subordination is not explicitly mentioned, the context (vv. 9–15) is built on the hierarchic relationship between sexes. Allusions function by evoking other, well-known elements of the pretext. 10 Appropriately BROX, Past, 136–138; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 101. 11 The lack of emphasis on punishment is accurately noted by KÜCHLER, Schweigen, 40; WAGENER, Ordnung, 108; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 101; H. MARSHALL, PE, 469 (“the point is rather the contrast between teaching and bearing children.”); pace DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 48; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 139, 141. 12 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 399–401 (400).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

263

The valuation of childbearing and motherhood is characteristic for the PE. This is also shown by 1 Tim 5,10.14, Tit 2,4 and in a different way though, by 2 Tim 1,6.13 1 Tim 5,10.14 lists the qualifications of the widows to be enrolled, referring to their previous acceptance of motherhood (v. 10: eiv evteknotro,fhsen). Younger widows have to be rejected; instead they are to fulfil their female role (v. 14: gamei/n, teknogonei/n). It may well be that teknotrofei/n means more than the mere act of birthgiving (teknogonei/n) and implies rearing one’s children.14 Yet, despite the ancient parallels cited by Wagener, arguing for rearing all of one’s children, it is unlikely that the author refers specifically to child exposure.15 This hypothesis is contradicted by the contrast between older widows, accepted because they have already reared children (evteknotro,fhsen) (vv. 9–10) and younger widows, to be discarded, as they are still to marry and bear children (v. 14, teknogonei/n). This suggests that teknotrofei/n and teknogonei/n are actually used synonymously and both refer to bearing and rearing children, as fulfilment of a typically female task. The issue at stake is not rearing only some of the born children, but of accepting motherhood as such with the related domestic tasks (oivkodespotei/n), instead of meddling into matters of no concern for women. Thus maternity is here, too, encouraged in order to settle the question about the proper vocation of women and to counter thereby their engagement in the public affairs of the church. This is shown precisely by the fact that vv. 10 and 14 constitute the frame of the harsh rebuttal of the undesired activity of widows outside the household (ĺ4.3.2.3).16 Tit 2 reflects a similar appraisal of motherhood as the eminent female vocation. Older women are encouraged to teach the younger ones to be irreproachable (v. 5), domestic, loving of husband and children (fila,ndrouj ei=nai( filote,knouj, v. 4). This expectation is entirely concordant with the female ideal reflected in epitaphs and in moral-philosophical writings (ĺ3.6.2).17 2 Tim 1,5 values women’s contribution to the education of their children in faith on the example of Eunike and Lois (ĺ4.3.2.1). The endorsement of childbearing is variously explained. Many regard it as part of the anti-Gnostic polemic,18 as the opponents are thought to promote 13

MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 297. As argued by WAGENER, Ordnung, 178–186 15 Pace WAGENER, Ordnung, 183–186. 16 WAGENER therefore rightly speaks of “Heirat der jungen Frauen als Gegenstrategie” (Ordnung, 211). 17 SPICQ, Épîtres II, 620; DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 140, R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 342. 18 BROX, Past, 136–137; TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 150; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 142 (as a possibility); OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 103; HÄFNER, “Nützlich zur Belehrung”, 126, 157. 14

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

264

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

hostility to creation, marriage and procreation.19 This background would explain the emphasis on marriage and childbearing. The same context would explain the need to prohibit women from public teaching, given their prominent representation in the Gnostic movement. This conclusion is far from compelling. As shown earlier, there is no unquestionable evidence for the opponents belonging to a Gnostic circle (ĺ3.2) and there is even less evidence for women teaching Gnostic doctrines (ĺ3.3). 1 Tim 2,15 may be easily explained from the previous verse, and therefore it does not need to be seen as expressing an anti-Gnostic polemic.20 It is much more probable that marriage and motherhood are encouraged against ascetic tendencies (that need not be associated as a matter of course with the Gnosis) and against trends that promoted a larger share for women in society and in the life of the church, teaching included.21 The PE advertise a lifestyle that harmonises with the created order and with contemporary social norms. One needs to note, however, the ideological application of such convictions. In this sense, the PE come close to those ancient sources that promote motherhood as the typical, natural function and social role of women,22 in order to keep them in their place. A look at various ancient sources shows how the appraisal of procreation may serve ideology. 3.6.2 The ideological representation of procreation and motherhood in antiquity 3.6.2.1 Procreation in literary and philosophical sources Greco-Roman culture offers a rather ambivalent and often ideological view of motherhood. Women are frequently reduced to their biological function,23 and childbearing is thought to be a physiological constraint.24 19

ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 224–228, 234–238; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 94, 97–98; DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 48–49; WOLTER, Past, 265–266. R. COLLINS seems undecided, as he speaks of enthusiastic, false asceticism that may have been related to a form of gnosticising dualism, but also refers to the APTh (1–2 Tim Tit, 75, 114–116). Yet, asceticism may exist unrelated to the Gnosis (WILSON, Gnosis and the New Testament, 41–42, and his cautious discussion of Gnosis in the PE). WITHERINGTON also thinks, and with good reason, that there is insufficient ground for attaching 1 Tim 4,3 to Gnostic views (Letters, 253–254). 20 WOLTER, Past, 260–261 (although he finds the opponents’ belonging to a form of protoGnosticism likely); also MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 309. 21 D. MACDONALD, Legend (the main thesis of the book); M. MACDONALD, Pauline Churches, 181–183; WAGENER, Ordnung, 108–109; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 298–300, 302. See also H. MARSHALL, PE, 51. 22 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 392–393, also TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 150. 23 To Creon Antigone, betrothed to his son, is just one “field to plough” among many (Soph.,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

265

According to a variety of Greek sources, the eminent function of wives, beyond household management, is to produce legitimate offspring.25 Female fertility will become an integral part of the Augustan and post-Augustan family ideology. For both man and woman procreation is a civic duty with implications for the welfare of polis and oikos, as well as a religious task. In his Funeral Oration, Thucydides’ Pericles encourages parents to hope to bear more children, not only as a comfort in their mourning for those they had lost, but also as a contribution to the polis, so that “it will not be left desolate and it will be secure”.26 Plato develops extensively the view that procreation is the civic duty of the couple.27 Due to the importance of this task, the state needs to control appropriate preparation to marriage and reproduction, as well as childrearing.28 According to the Laws paidopoii,a is also a religious obligation that secures the preservation of the human race and provides a sort of immortality; children will minister to God, after their parents.29 Yet, it is not so evident that qerapei,a, tamiei,a and paidotrofi,a should be Ant. 569). The idiom “ploughing of legitimate children” is attested several times in Menander and others, as a betrothal formula, expressing the purpose of marriage. As noted by GOULD, “Law”, 53, n. 112 (quoting Men., Dys. 842 ff., Perik. 1013 ff., Sam. 726 ff. and several other examples). 24 Plato has the womb quasi-personified, as a living being longing for childbearing (zw|/on evpiqumhtiko.n evno.n th/j paidopoii,aj); if it remains fruitless (a;karpton) for too long time, in its frustration it wanders (plana,w) through the body, impeding vital functions and causing diseases. Motherhood is the cure of this unfortunate condition (Tim. 91C). “Physiological” arguments for the benefits of marriage also appear in ancient medical treatises. See Hippocr., On Unmarried girls, in MCCLURE, Sexuality and Gender, 98–99. 25 Esp. in orators: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” Dem. 59.122. On female infidelity producing uncertainty about the legitimacy of children, Lys. 1.32. On male fidelity securing the legitimacy of all progeny: Isoc. 3.42. A more positive representation, though still conceiving parental roles according to the analogy of tiller and soil is found in [Arist.], Oec. 3.2: the effort of the husband to train his wife aims at begetting children “from the noblest of stock.” 26 Thuc. 2.44.3 (tou/ mh. evrmou/sqai kai. avsfalei,a|). To a modern reader there is some cynicism in this consolation (these children, after being brought up to manhood by the polis, a fictitious mother of its citizens, will eventually also be compelled to offer their life for the welfare of the state). 27 Leg. 6; 783 DE (“The bride and bridegroom must set their minds to produce for the State children of the greatest possible goodness and beauty. […] The bridegroom, therefore, shall apply his mind both to the bride and to the work of procreation, and the bride shall do likewise […]”). On the difference between the Republic and the Laws concerning marriage and childrearing see the foreword by Ch. H. KAHN to MORROW, Cretan City, XXIII. 28 evpi,skopoi d v e;stwsan tou,twn a]j eivlo,meqa gunai/kej (Leg. 6; 784 AB; cf. also 794B on the role of ai` tw/n ga,mwn ku,riai th/j evmelei,aj). Men still unmarried at 35 should be fined and barred from public honours (Leg. 6; 774AB). See also Resp. 460A–461A, on the regulation of procreation (nevertheless in the context of the community of wives). 29 Leg. 7; 773E. Cf. also 776B: “a man and his wife […] shall beget and bring up children, handing on the torch of life from one generation to another, and worshipping the Gods according to law for ever”. When one of the parents dies without leaving enough children, the other should remarry (9; 930BC).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

266

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

regarded as Plato’s summary of a woman’s duties,30 since in the context the Athenian pleads for women’s active lifestyle, including education on similar terms with men and military training.31

Although procreation is a civic duty of both parents, theoretical and ethical writings up to Neopythagoreanism and to (middle to late) Stoicism do not assign significant importance to motherhood as personal involvement in rearing one’s children and as a path to achieving virtue. This is partly due to the fact that women are not perceived as moral subjects. In the Republic Plato outrightly deconstructs the family and takes out the education of children from the hands of their parents. He is less radical in the Laws, but he does not have much to say about maternal roles. Some philosophical traditions question the importance of procreation and implicitly the importance of motherhood. Cynics have little interest in marriage as an institution and in the conventions attached to it.32 The Old Stoa shares much of the unconventional views of the Cynics, and the acceptance of marriage as vocation of the wise coexists with the idea of a community of wives.33 Maternity as vocation seems to be unknown in an environment that attributes an almost exclusive role in reproduction to the father, in certain cases even promotes promiscuity and does not recognise the role of mothers in education. The early Stoics seem to admit that affection for children (pro.j ta. te,kna filostorgi,a) is a natural instinct (fusikh,).34 30

Leg. 7; 806A. As suggested by SHAW, “Female Intruder” 256, n. 8. Also 804D–805A,CD; 813E–814C. Supervisors of marriage have a public task (chs. 7; 9). 32 Yet, for Antisthenes, in a way a precursor of Cynicism, procreation (teknopoii,a) is the ultimate goal of marriage (Diog. Laert. 6.11); this seems to benefit the polis (RIST, Stoic Philosophy, 56). Diogenes appears to have questioned marriage, just as involvement in the affairs of the polis. Diogenes’ epistle to Zeno (MALHERBE, Cynic Epistles, 179, no. 47) dissuades the wise from marrying and raising children (ouv gamhte,on ouvde qrepte,on pai/daj), as human weakness (avsqe,neia) is burdened by marriage and childrearing (evpi. te,knwn trofh,n). Though probably pseudonymous, it seems to be in line with the common perception of Cynics’ position on the matter. As opposed to the wise, the world will continue to beget children, to secure the perpetuation of the species, but, paradoxically, those who promote this aim (as important as the reproduction of wasps and flies), have allegedly not observed the true nature of things (th.n tw/n o;ntwn fu,sin). Crates seemed similarly critical about the social conventions of propriety regarding marriage, as suggested by the lifestyle he and Hipparchia adopted (if one can believe the tales about them), although his very act of marrying shows that marriage as such was not necessarily rejected. Diog. Laert. 6.96–98; see RIST, Stoic Philosophy, 59–62, 66–67 (As Rist puts it, for the Cynic wise, marriage “is a freely chosen, permanent, though not necessarily exclusive, relationship”; 67). 33 The wise hold women in common for reproductive purposes (Zeno’s Republic, cf. Diog. Laert. 7.131.1–8; Chrysippus, SVF 3.728–731, 745–756 [many of these latter quotes refer to promiscuity, esp. to the legitimacy of incest, apparently argued by early Stoics, and not to the community of wives]). On the position of early Stoicism: ENGEL, “Women’s Role”, 270–272; RIST, Stoic Philosophy, 79; CROUCH, Origin, 49–50. 34 Diog. Laert. 7.120 (although only for the good). Compare 7.121 on early Stoics’ positive attitude toward politics, marriage and procreation. 31

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

267

This is not to say that in reality mothers may not have had a larger share in raising their children than political and education theories would allow, or that maternal (parental) feelings were nonexistent. However, few theoretical sources reflect on motherly care. Xenophon is again among the exceptions. To him a sw,fron woman is not only a good manager of the estate, but also a good mother.35 All the more so, as God “had both implanted in the woman and assigned to her the nurture of newborn children, he had measured out to her a greater share of affection for newborn babies than he gave to the man”.36 Certain sources, like the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica emphasise that by agreeing to marriage and childbearing, the woman fulfils her duty toward her husband.37 Motherhood is thus the expression of the wife’s gratitude toward her husband for being accepted, “acquired” and introduced into his family.38 Here, too, parenthood receives a religious and socio-economical motivation. Procreation is a sacred task, aiming at producing worthy children that will support their parents and will be carriers of property. The sanctity of procreation becomes a pervasive motif in ancient, traditionally-minded literature. Plutarch argues that this holy task should be approached by both husband and wife with piety and purity.39 Thus at least some authors assign certain value to procreation and implicitly to motherhood. Later Stoics develop a much more positive view on procreation and parental roles, not least because they regard marriage and reproduction as 35

Isomachus’ exemplary wife exclaims: “just as it seems natural for a decent woman (th/| sw,froni) to take care of her children (te,knwn evpimelei/sqai) and not to neglect them (avmelei/n), so too it gives a decent woman more hapiness to be concerned about her possessions (tw/n kthma,twn) […] rather than to neglect them.” Xen., Oec. 9.19 (transl. Pomeroy, modified). The association of children and possessions probably reflects the position of a male head of household, not that of a mother. See also Mem. 1.4.7 (the natural instinct of the birthgiving mother to rear [evktre,fein] her children, compared to that of the man to beget children, teknopoii,a); 2.2.1 (the mother as benefactor of her children). 36 Xen., Oec. 7.24 (transl. Pomeroy). 37 The wife has to show exceptional respect and submission to her husband, all the more in adversity or misfortune; she has to serve him because “he has […] bought her with a great price – with partnership in his life and in the procreation of children; than which things nought could be greater or more divine (societate namquae vitae et procreatione liberorum quibus nil maius nec sanctius fieret)” [Arist.], Oec. 3.1. 38 “she has entered his home like a suppliant from without, and is pledged to be the partner of his life and parenthood; and that the offspring she leaves behind her will bear the names of their parents, her name as well as his. And what could be more divine than this, or more desired by a man of sound mind, than to beget by a noble and honored wife children who shall be the most loyal supporters and discreet guardians of their parents in old age, and the preservers of the whole house?”, [Arist.], Oec. 3.2. 39 Plut., Conj. praec. 42, Mor. 144B.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

268

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

related to human nature and as part of a wise person’s functions or duties (kaqh,konta). Antipater addresses the well-born, cultivated young man, intending to engage in the life of the polis, who should be aware that his life and household can be fulfilled only in marriage and by having children.40 Marriage is a civic obligation, it belongs to the most necessary things, to one’s duties (pro. tw/n kaqh,kontwn), it is an act that pertains to nature and it honours the gods.41 Whoever lacks a wife and children ignores the most genuine feeling of kindness.42 Marriage brings about the fullest communion between man and woman, achieved not least in their children.43 In his treatment of procreation, Cicero, an ecclectic who assimilates many Stoic views, combines the argument from nature with conviction about humans’ superior kind of affection, dedication and providential care for their offspring.44 Epictetus refers to marriage and procreation as e;rga prohgou,mhna, rooted in human nature and as a means of ensuring the continuation of the human race.45 Marriage and the instinct of procreation, indifferent in 40 Antip., peri. ga,mou, Stob., Floril. 3.25 (ed. Meineke, p. 11–12) = Stob. Anthol., ed. Wachsmuth 4.22.25 (p. 507). On Antipater’s views on marriage: ASMIS, “Stoics on Women”, 76– 80 (far too optimistic about the alleged equality of man and woman in Stoic perception); BALCH, Wives, 145–146; ID., “1 Cor 7:32–35”, 432–433; ENGEL, “Women’s Role”, 276, 278–279 (rightly critical of Asmis). 41 Antip., p) ga,mou, Stob., Floril. 3.25 (ed. Meineke, p. 12, 16–21) = Stob. Anthol., ed. Wachsmuth 4.22.25 (p. 508). 42 a;geuston ei=nai th/j avlhqinwta,thj kai. gnhsi,ou euvnoi,aj) Antip., p) ga,mou, Stob., Floril. 3.25 (ed. Meineke, p. 12.23–25) = Stob. Anthol., ed. Wachsmuth 4.22.25 (p. 508). Although entailing some difficulties, marriage is not a burden, since a good wife improves the life of her husband, freeing him of the tasks of household management and allowing him thereby to engage in public pursuits. 43 Antip., p) ga,mou, Stob., Floril. 3.25 (ed. Meineke, p. 12, 28–32) = Stob. Anthol., ed. Wachsmuth 4.22.25 (p. 508). 44 The very constitution of the human body indicates that it was shaped by nature for the purpose of procreation; moreover this instinct is consistent with love for one’s offspring, another impulse inculcated by nature (Fin. 3.19.62–63). Reproductive instinct and care for the offspring (“coniunctionis adpetitus procreandi causa et cura quaedam eorum, quae procreata sint”) are shared with animals, but man, endowed with reason, and a sense of time and causality, has the ability to make decisions about the future wellbeing of (his wife and) children. Cic., Off. 1.11–12, On the altruistic dimension of affection for one’s offspring in Cicero’s argument: ENGBERGPEDERSEN, Paul and the Stoics, 68. 45 Diss. 3.7.26 (discussing duties, he asserts: “So also in the case of man, it is not his material substance that we should honour, […] but the principal things. What are these? The duties of citizenship, marriage, begetting children, reverence to God, care of parents (polite,uesqai, gamei/n, paidopoiei/sqai, qeo.n se,bein, gone,wn evpimelei/sqai)” (transl. Oldfather). On Epictetus’ view of sexuality and marriage: BONHÖFFER, Ethics, 91–96, 124–129, 257 (pages refer to the Engl. translation). Interestingly, gamei/n and paidopoiei/sqai are listed after politeu,esqai and before qeo.n se,bein, gone,wn evpimelei/sqai. However, elsewhere Epictetus strongly defends Cynics’ decision to remain unmarried, since concern for the family could hinder their moral advancement. Procreation is not good in itself, as certain vocations may benefit humanity more (Diss. 3.22.67–79).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

269

themselves, are nonetheless natural and preferred and may thus become a way toward virtue, since desire for children is an expression of selflessness.46 Hierocles’ arguments for marriage are very similar to those of his predecessors: marriage is a form of communion essential to the polis, a duty (kaqh,kon) and a wise choice taught by nature.47 Marriage benefits the man, both because of the reward of children and because of the ministering and comfort provided by the wife.48 Conspicuously, however, the increasing worth assigned to procreation and parental roles appears in discussions addressing men, their role and their perspective on the matter. Women come into sight mostly as instruments that help men to fulfil this responsible task. 3.6.2.2 Motherhood and virtue Few authors refer to the moral qualities to be displayed by a mother. Neopythagorean and some Stoic sources, beside laying emphasis on procreation as an eminent goal of marriage,49 associate a woman’s love for her husband to that for her children, regarding both as expressions of a virtuous life. Neopythagorean exhortations are addressed to women themselves, a significant difference compared to the vast majority of sources that speak to men. According to the Neopythagorean treatise On the Harmony of a Woman, ascribed to Perictione, the ideal wife, full of prudence and modesty (fronh,sio,j te kai. swfrosu,nhj plei,hn), will love her husband, her children and all members of her household.50 The fictitious letter of Theano to Nikostrate argues that a good woman should distinguish herself by a 46 See ASMIS, “Stoics on Women”, 75–77, 91. On the underlying theory of impulses and pleasures, natural and unnatural, on the kaqh/kwn and on the morally good pleasures contributing to the fulfilment of duties, as well as on marriage and sexuality: RIST, Stoic Philosophy, 38–52, 55– 57; 97–111 (the latter on the classification of acts), and the excursus on the kaqh/kwn in BONHÖFFER, Ethics, 244–289. See also CROUCH, Origin, 47–56. 47 Hierocl., Fragmenta ethica, peri. ga,mou, Stob., Floril. (ed. Meineke), 3.21–22 (pp. 7–8), = Stob. Anthol. (ed. Wachsmuth) 4.22.21–22 (p. 502–503). On Hierocles: RAMELLI, Hierocles the Stoic (2009). 48 Hierocl., p) ga,mou, Stob., Floril. (ed. Meineke) 3.24 (pp. 8–10) = Stob., Anthol. (ed. Wachsmuth) 4.22.23 (p. 503–504); GUTHRIE, 281–284; RAMELLI, Hierocles, 73–81. Happiness in marriage depends on the appropriate choice of a wife and on the right motives (procreation and community of life); other reasons, such as dowry, can ruin concord and marriage (ĺ4.3.3). With this emphasis on a couple’s full koinonia Hierocles has, alongside Antipater, the most positive opinion on marriage. For Hierocles’ position, see also CROUCH, Origin, 68–69; BALCH, Wives, 4– 5; ID., “1 Cor 7:32–35”, 431–432. 49 On the procreationist understanding of sexual intercourse in marriage: Mus., Fr. 12 (LUTZ, 84/85–88/89); On the matter see also GACA, “Reproductive Technology”, 113–132 (her contention that procreationism may not be regarded as a Stoic teaching only because it appears in Seneca and Musonius, is debatable). 50 Perict., De mul. harm., THESLEFF, 142,16–143,5; GUTHRIE, 240.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

270

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

well-ordered relationship (euvtaxi,a) to her husband, by care for the household (evpimelei,a pro.j to.n oi=kon), concord with her acquaintances and tender love toward her children (filostorgi,a teri. ta/ te,kna).51 Musonius is among the few Stoics to bring together love for husband and for children in the moral ideal to be achieved by women, alongside other (more or less gender-specific) virtues. In his view these qualities result from women studying philosophy.52 Devoted love for children ranks very high in a woman’s moral accomplishment: As for justice, would not the woman who studies philosophy be just (dikai,a), would she not be a blameless life-partner (a;memptoj bi,ou kwinwno,j), would she not be a sympathetic helpmate (o`monoi,aj avgaqh. sunergo,j), would she not be an untiring defender of husband and children (avndro,j kai. te,knwn evpimelh.j khdemw,n) and would she not be entirely free of greed and arrogance (filokerdei,aj h' pleonexi,aj pa,nth| kaqara,)? [...] who better than she would love her children more than life itself? [...] Such a woman is likely to be energetic, strong to endure pain, prepared to feed her children at her own breast and to serve her husband with her own hands and willing to do things which some would consider no better than slaves’ work. Would not such a woman be a great help to the man who married her, an ornament to her relatives and a good example (para,deigma crhsto,n) for all who know her?53

It has been argued that Seneca and Epictetus also regard women as able to perform duties toward their family and this perception may be specific for later versions of the Stoic kaqh,konta.54 Yet, one needs to acknowledge that their discussion of the matter is often contingent or implicit.55 At any rate, the Neopythagorean writings (as ideological as they may be), as well as the reflections of Musonius show that by the time Christianity emerges, parenthood starts to be discussed from the viewpoint of women as well.

51

STÄDELE, 172,30–34. Mus., Fr. 3 (LUTZ, 38/39–42/43). 53 Mus., Fr. 3 (LUTZ, 40,25–42,11, slightly modified, emphases added). 54 CROUCH, Origin, 56, 66–67, 71–72, 147; cf. Sen., Ben. 3.18.1 (duties are acts carried out by those bound to a person by kinship relations, like the wife or son); Ep. 94,1–3.8; Epict., Diss. 2.14.8. See also BALCH, Wives, 8. 55 In Ep. 94 Seneca touches upon the idea that women perform duties when he comments Ariston’s view that advice on behaviour in various relationships is superfluous. Against Ariston he sustains the value of such endeavour; one may thus suspect that advice given to women is also meaningful. In Ben. 3.18.1 the wife is merely an example. Epictetus simply lists the roles and relationships to be carried out, including that of a wife (Diss. 2.14.8). 52

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

271

3.6.2.3 Procreation and ideology in legal regulations Marriage and procreation were endorsed not only through ethical exhorttations, but also via legal regulations throughout the Greco-Roman world.56 The Augustan legislation and its later reception is the most relevant for the topic of this investigation, as it shows the extent to which procreation was perceived as a public matter that required strong incentive.57 The effects of Augustan legislation have marked Roman societies throughout the Empire, over more than a century. The penalties imposed on those failing to enter marriages resulting in children were reinforced several times under subsequent emperors.58 The ancient recollection on the Augustan laws on marriage and childbearing has, just as the laws themselves, a striking ideological dimension. Dio Cassius’ construction of the Augustan speech that underpins this legislation is a very instructive example for the way procreation may be turned into ideology.59 The praise of the citizens complying with the law (56.3.8) affirms the eminent importance of procreation. Childbearing is rooted in the divine order of creation that fashioned the human race as male and female and implanted in them love and compulsion for procreation (56.2.4–5). Reproduction secures a kind of immortality to the family.60 Childbearing provides society with economic and political power (56.3.6–7).61 The lengthy reproach to those rejecting this noblest duty (56,4–8) reinforces the same argument. These persons, unworthy of being called men or citizens, are responsible for the potential annihilation of Rome and of the human race and are 56 On Spartan legislation imposing penalties on those who did not marry, or rewarding those with several children: Arist., Pol. 2, 1270AB; Plut., Lyc. 15.1–2; Lys. 30.5. Val. Max. 2.9.1 records that censors Camillus and Postumius fined elder bachelors, procreation being a law prescribed by nature and a duty toward ancestors. 57 On the Augustan laws promoting marriage and procreation: Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 9.22.2 (a brief allusion to the law on compulsory marriage), Cass. Dio, Hist. 56 (see below); Suet., Aug. 34. The Augustan legislation (Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, 18 BCE, and Lex Papia Poppaea, 9 CE) has been widely discussed. See RADITSA, “Augustus’ Legislation”, 278–339 (with an acute sense for the ideological dimension of such legislation); DIXON, The Roman Mother, 84–89; TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 60–80; MILNOR, “Augustus, History, and the Landscape of the Law”, 7–23. Compare WINTER, Roman Wives, 39–47. 58 See TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 78–79, for various subsequent regulations. The ius trium liberorum was still important during Trajan, even for men (Plin., Ep. 2,13; 10.94; 10.2). 59 Cass. Dio, Hist. 56. The context is that of the equestrian revolt (also Suet., Aug. 34). 60 This occurs through the succession of generations, through the preservation of the name, honour and memory of the ancestors (56.2.3–4, cf. 56.3.2,5). The individual lives on in his descendents, and does not fall pray to annihilation. The child bears the endowments of the parents, is a living image of the father and a carrier of the heritage (56.3.4–5). 61 It is essential to the survival of Rome (56.2.1; 56.3.6,8). This is the most emphatic argument. Only by having children do men deserve to be called men and citizens, as by doing so they secure the demographic conditions for Rome’s perdurance, supremacy and glory, both at peace and at war.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

272

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

accountable for the worst of crimes – murder, sacrilege, impiety and betrayal of the country. In this elaborate speech only men are addressed and regarded as responsible for the duty of producing children. Women appear briefly, in the listing of the private advantages of marriage: For is there anything better than a wife who is chaste, domestic, a good housekeeper, a rearer of children (a;riston gunh. sw,frwn oivkouro.j oivkono,moj paidotro,foj); one to gladden you in health, to tend you in sickness; to be your partner in good fortune, to console you in misfortune; to restrain the mad passion of youth and to temper the unseasonable harshness of old age?62 This reflection describes the virtues and rewards coming from an ideal wife, rewards that obviously include childbearing.

The Augustan legislation on marriage addressed women as well. They could be released from guardianship as mothers of three (if freeborn women) or of four (if freed). Women who gave birth to children were entitled to a larger share of their inheritance after their husband; conversely, the inheritance rights of the unmarried were limited.63 Widowed women were given by the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus one year to remarry after the loss of the husband, a period increased to two years by the Lex Papia; the divorced enjoyed a respite of six months and eighteen months, respectively.64 Severy argued that by regulating women’s duty to marry and bear children and by emancipating mothers of three or four from the tutela, the Augustan legislation turned motherhood into a public role, comparable in a sense to that of the Vestal Virgins.65 This claim may be overly optimistic. Women did receive this freedom precisely by complying with their gender-specific role that assigned them to the private sphere.66 The situation of the widows is also worth considering, because of its relevance for our topic. The insistence on widows’ remarriage for the purpose of procreation surely influenced first century practice and mentalities concerning motherhood. No doubt, remarriage was rather the rule in Roman societies for practical reasons. What is striking, however, is not necessarily the fact that widows were to remarry, but the coercive character of this legal 62

Cass. Dio, Hist. 56.3.3. Compared to the restrictive Voconian Law (169 BCE). See TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 69–72. 64 RADITSA, “Augustus’ Legislation”, 323; TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 73–74. According to the Gnomon of the Idiologus, probably referring to Egypt, property taxes paid by unmarried women were considerable (EAD., 78). Suet., Aug. 34 speaks of an exemption of three years for widows, without naming the law that mitigated the earlier provisions. 65 SEVERY, Augustus, 53. Both, either by their chastity or by their virtuous reproduction contributed to the welfare of the state. 66 SPÄTH, “Frauenmacht”, 169. 63

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

273

provision. On the other hand, the stipulation prescribing widows to remarry was at odds with the ideal of the univira that had been gaining increasing support.67 It is not without interest that the Pastorals, encouraging women to embrace motherhood and demanding widows to remarry and bear children, were written in a society that had been obviously shaped by legal regulations of this type, which remained influential well beyond the rule of Augustus. 3.6.2.4 Motherhood and ideology in literary sources of the Early Empire In literary sources reflecting the (post-)Augustan ideology motherhood becomes the eminent female role.68 Often rather fabricated and romanced narratives celebrate eminent mothers of old, let them be idealised historical characters or outrightly legendary figures. Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus and his wife, Virgilia, are praised for having saved Rome.69 Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, a mother of twelve, figures prominently, quite often in the service of ideology. Cornelia’s moral authority is said to come from having given birth and having raised children.70 Valerius Maximus turns her motherhood into an exemplum – to a matron showing her jewels (ornamenta) she would have pointed to her children as her ornaments.71 In Tacitus, Messalla refers to her, to Aurelia, mother of Julius Caesar, and Atia, mother of Augustus as examples of women of traditional excellence, who have dedicated themselves to the education of their children, instead of entrusting them to nurses.72 Plutarch asserts that after her husband’s death Cornelia (depicted as an univira), dedicated herself to the education of her children.73 Plutarch also praises Octavia for her exemplary behaviour: not only was she faithful to the unfaithful Antony, but she loved her children just as Antony’s children from Fulvia; this was a sign of truly noble devotion and generosity.74 Tacitus praises German mothers’ dedication to their children, targeting the behaviour of Roman women. The former accept children unconditionally, they do not recur to birth control, nor to infanticide and nurture their children themselves, instead of employing wet-nurses.75 Seneca extols his 67

POMEROY, Goddesses, 161; SEVERY, Augustus, 67. See also LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL, “Univira”, 19–32. 68 Hor., Saec. 13–14, 18–20. 69 Plut., Cor. 33–36. 70 Plut., C. Gracch. 4.1, although the same work notes her political influence as well. 71 Val. Max. 4.4 praef. 72 Tac., Dial. 28.5–6. 73 Plut., Ti. Gracch. 1.4. 74 Plut, Ant. 54. See the discussion in SEVERY, Augustus, 39. 75 Tac., Germ. 19.5; 20.1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

274

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

mother for having accepted maternity, against contemporary women’s reluctance: “you have never blushed for your fertility, as if it taunted you with your years, never have you, in the manner of other women whose only recommendation lies in their beauty, tried to conceal your pregnancy as if an unseemly burden, nor have you ever crushed the hope of children that were being nurtured in your body.”76 In sum, mothers of the legendary past or from the authors’ entourage are placed on a pedestal, as models for respectable women. These examples are meant to encourage women to hold to their traditional roles. 3.6.2.5 Maternal feelings in literature and inscriptions In spite of the fact that motherhood is often used for ideological purposes, maternal feelings do not go unmentioned in literature. Interestingly, however, filotekni,a does not figure as prominently as reproduction.77 Euripidean drama refers to maternal or parental love in an ambivalent way, to emphasise rather its contradictory character than its ideal value.78 Even so, maternal love is an expression of selfless fili,a as early as Xenophon and Aristotle.79 Plutarch’s Consolation to his wife offers a glimpse into the feelings of a mother and father at the loss of a child.80 Filotekni,a is a recurrent motif of eulogy in epigraphic sources, particularly in epitaphs for women. It often accompanies filandri,a as well as gender-specific virtues like swfrosu,nh, kosmio,thj and aivdw,j.81 76

Sen., Helv. 16.3. It is rather ironical that the epithet appears in Hdt., Hist. 2.66 with respect to cats. 78 Phoen. 355–356: deino.n gunaixi.n ai` diV wvdi,wn gonai,( kai. filo,tekno,n pwj pa/n gunaiei/on ge,noj. The assertion is ambivalent, as the sons (Polyneices and Eteocles) are moved by reprehensible ambitions. See also Her. 634–636 (love for children as universal human feeling; yet, possessed by madness, Heracles will kill his children and wife); Eur., IA 917–918: deino.n to. ti,ktein […] w[sqV u`perka,mnein te,knwn (“Mighty is motherhood […], all mothers, for their child’s life will fight hard”, transl. Way; the chorus comments on Clytemnestra throwing herself at Achilles’ feet putting off decorum, entreating him to save Iphigenia). On maternal/parental feelings in antiquity: GOLDEN, “Did the Ancients Care?”, 152–163; DIXON, “Sentimental Ideal”, 99–113. 79 Xen., Oec. 7.24; Arist., Eth. Nic. 8.8.3–4, 1159A (mothers who entrust their children to nurses show selfless love: while still caring for them, they cannot expect their love to be returned); 8.12.2–3, 1161B (parental, in particular maternal love stronger than children’s love for parents); 9.4.1 (1166A); 9.7.7 (1168A, maternal love as bestowal of benefits, and deeper than paternal love [mhte,rej filotekno,terai], because it costs them more trouble). Rackham regards “the mother is more certain that the child is her own” as an irrelevant insertion from 8.12.2ff (p. 548, n. a). 80 Plut., Cons. ad ux. 2–3, Mor. 608 C–E. 81 IvP II. 604 = PH 302279 (Julius Bassus to his wife, Otacilia Polla, th/| glukuta,th| gunaiki. fila,ndrw| kai. filote,knw|; probably under Hadrian; also quoted by DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 140, n. 11; VERNER, Household, 135). A Valeria, daughter of Marcus, from Caesarea (Mauritania) is said to have been kind, affectionate, dignified and blameless, loving her husband and her children, 77

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

275

Literary sources and epitaphs reflect the conviction that marriage and children are the fulfilment of a woman’s life. Sophocles’ Antigone wails for dying unwed and without children.82 Isaeus’ Menecles urges his wife’s family to give her in marriage to a younger man, as it would be unfair to let her grow old childless (a;paida).83 Plutarch knows that his wife grieves the fact that her little daughter died unmarried, before having children.84 In epitaphs of unwed girls parents grieve not only the loss of their daughter, but also her not having reached fulfilment in marriage.85 These few examples show that although moral-philosophical writings generally focus on the duty of procreation, quite often in an ideological manner, and pay attention to the role of men, a few literary sources (in particular drama) and foremost epitaphs lay more emphasis on the personal dimension of motherhood. Epitaphs can certainly be ideological themselves, as they commonly list conventional female virtues. Yet, they probably come closer to real women’s perception of maternity and their sense of filotekni,a. 3.6.2.6 Women as educators Teaching and education commonly pertain to the tasks of men, whether fathers, husbands, or professional teachers.86 A woman is entrusted with the upbringing of her children only when she is widowed.87 Women seldom and faithful in marriage (eu;noun filo,storgon\ semnhh.n\ a;mwmon/ fi,landron\ filo,teknon\ euvnoucon). The memorial is drafted by her husband, L. Dexios from Herculaneum, “out of respect and love for what is good (euvsebei,aj kai. filagaqi,aj)” (late 1st / early 2nd cent., Cairo); see G. HORSLEY, “A Woman’s Virtues”, 40–43 (40). He lists several other inscriptions where women are depicted as filo,storgoj, fi,landroj, filo,teknoj (41–43). (In his sample filo,teknoj is particularly well represented in Egypt.) The wife of lyciarch Fl. Antiochus (FdXanth VII 71, Xanthus) is praised as avreth/| kai. sw[fr]osu,nh| kai. filandri,a| kai. filote,[knia| diaf]e,rousan. Claudia Arescousa is praised for her filandri,a, filotekni,a and swfrosu,nh (TAM II 443, Patara, Lycia). The epitaph of Eragatiane Menodora, daughter of the sophist Eragatianos Menodoros, wife of Aur. Faustinus recalls her filandri,a, filote,knia and swfrosu,nh (IK Perge 316, Perge, Pamphilia, 3rd cent. CE). 82 Soph., Ant. 917–920. 83 Isae. 2.7. 84 Plut., Cons. ad ux. 9, Mor. 611 C. 85 STEHLE, “Good Daughter”, 179–200 (citing from P. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca I–II, Berlin, 1983, 1989). See also MAMA 7, 336. For Roman attitudes, D’AMBRA, Roman Women, 66. Compare Juv., Sat. 15, 138–139 (“naturae imperio gemimus, cum funus adultae virginis occurrit”). 86 [Arist.], Oec. 1.3.4; [Plut.], De lib. ed. 5, Mor. 3CD; Sen., Ep. 94,1 (“patri quomodo educet liberos”). 87 Ideologically stated in Leg. 11, 930BC: “And if a man dies leaving a sufficient number of children, the mother of his children shall remain with them and bring them up (trefe,tw). But if she appears to be too young to live virtuously without a husband (u`giai,nousa a;nandroj), let her relations communicate with the women who superintend marriage, […]; if there is a lack of children, let the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

276

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

appear as teachers, even in relation to their children, except to provide for the moral education of their daughters or other female relatives. Mothers’ role is commonly reduced to nurturing.88 The few records suggesting that women play a role in education either minimise their contribution, or subordinate it to a different agenda. Terence has a mother teaching daughters. Yet, the mother of Thais and adoptive mother of Pamphila is a courtesan.89 The education of the two girls, possibly including intellectual training, will actually prepare them for a similar career,90 or at least strengthens the traditional connection between education and licentious lifestyle. The legendary Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, an exemplary widow, is often mentioned as having provided moral education and instruction to her sons. Cicero and Quintilian appear to admit the influence of her style on the rhetorical skills of her sons.91 Yet, both, while referring to the mother’s influence in education, assign her only an auxiliary role.92 Plutarch gives her the credit for having excellently reared (evxe,qreyen) her children, so that they were thought to owe their virtues more to education (pepaideu/sqai) than to nature.93 choice be made with a view to having them.”) When the father is widowed and has enough children, he is advised, but not compelled, to raise them on his own, without bringing in a stepmother. 88 Plato assigns a larger share to nurses even in fostering (Leg. 7, 794A). The education of boys is a male task. Tutors and teachers replace mothers and nurses in the education of boys (7, 808E). The female supervisers of education only oversee the games and nurturing of children (paidiai/j kai. trofai/j), whereas men superintend their lessons (7, 795D). Ps.-Plutarch addresses fathers extensively, but mentions the mother’s role only in nursing and breastfeeding (strengthening the bonds of affection between mother and child), and never refers to her as educator. Although the author principially dismisses the employment of wet-nurses, he advises parents to choose nurses that are able to tell children instructive stories (Mor. 3F). Ps.-Aristotle apparently mentions the role of both parents in childrearing, a role that will secure them support in their old age: “Rightly reared by father and mother, children will grow up virtuous, as those who have treated them piously and righteously deserve that they should; but [parents] who observe not these precepts will be losers thereby” (Oec. 3.2.5–7). However, earlier the difference was made clear: while both parents are involved in procreation, the mother is responsible for nurturing her children and the father for their education: peri. te,knon th.n me.n ge,nesin koinh,n( th.n de. wvfe,leian i;dion\ tw/n me.n ga.r to. qre,yai( tw/n de. to. paideu/sai. evstin (1.3.4). Xenophon is among the few who consider child rearing to be a shared task of parents (Oec. 7.12: paideu,somen auvta,); cf. also POMEROY, Oikonomikos, 35, noting the contrast to [Arist.], Oec. 89 Eun. 116–117: “Mater ubi accepit, coepit studiose omnia docere, educare ita uti si esset filia”. 90 That in the comedy things will turn out in a different manner is another issue. 91 Quint., Inst. 1.1.6; compare Cic., Brut. 211: “legimus epistulas Corneliae matris Gracchorum: apparet filios non tam in gremio educatos quam in sermone matris”. 92 Rightly, DIXON, Roman Mother, 109–110, referring to Quint., Inst. Or. 1.15 (the nurses are the first to influence speech) and Cic., Brut. 211 (the importance of educated mothers like Cornelia and Laelia). 93 “Cornelia took charge of the children and of the estate, and showed herself so discreet, so good a mother, and so magnanimous, that Tiberius was thought to have made no bad decision

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Motherhood instead of teaching

277

Tacitus records that Agricola, his father-in-law, was educated by his mother, Julia Procilla, a woman of rare virtue (“rarae castitatis”), passing his childhood and youth in the pursuit of liberal accomplishments.94 It appears, however, that she endowed him with care and guidance, rather than intellectual training.95 Plutarch reminds his wife that she shared with him in the upbringing (avnatrofh,) of all their children, four sons and a daughter.96 Yet, the reference to the nurse in the immediate context weakens his point on parents’ role in child rearing.97 In a fictitious letter of Theano to Eubule the author advises the mother to provide appropriate upbringing to her children.98 The issue, at any rate, is moral education (more precisely control of desires and passions) and not intellectual instruction. Real life may have offered more opportunities to women to educate their children. In Rome and probably in the Greek East widowed women could supervise the education of their sons, but probably not as much as instructors properly speaking.99 Women were allowed little part in the intellectual training of their children, but they had some role in their moral education. 3.6.3 Summary Compared to other NT writings, and unlike the genuine epistles of Paul, the PE show an unusual interest in promoting maternal roles. This concern is conspicuous in several texts (1 Tim 2,15; 5,10.14; Tit 2,4.11; 2 Tim 1,5). Of when he elected to die instead of such a woman. For when Ptolemy the king offered to share his crown with her, and sought her hand in marriage, she refused him, and remained a widow. In this state she lost most of her children, but three survived; one daughter […] and two sons, Tiberius and Caius […]. These sons Cornelia reared with such scrupulous care, that although confessedly no other Romans were so well endowed by nature, they seemed to owe their virtues more to education than to nature.” Plut., Ti. Gracch. 1.4–5 (transl. Perrin). 94 “In huius sinu indulgentiaquae educatus per omnem artium cultum pueritiam adulescentiamquae transegit”; Tac., Agr. 4.2–3. 95 Agricola admits having shown an excessive interest in philosophy in his youth, unusual according to Roman standards for young men preparing for the senatorial career. This inclination was checked in time by his mother. She manifested wisdom (prudentia), when he, in his youthful pursuit for great and exalted ideas, was more arduous than cautious (“vehementem quam caute”). 96 Plut., Cons. ad ux. 2, Mor. 608 C. 97 Rightly, BRADLEY, “Images of Childhood”, 188. 98 STÄDELE, 166/167–168/169 (probably from the first to second cent. CE, cf. p. 293). The letter of Myia to Phyllis (162/163–164/165) deals entirely with practical matters concerning nurture (the choice of the nurse, feeding). 99 E.g. Julia, mother of Antony (Plut., Ant. 2.1: yet, even here she reared him: evtra,fh). Whether Murdia, beside financial responsibilities, had a role in raising her children, is not mentioned.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

278

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

these, 1 Tim 2,15 stands out because of its emphasis on the salvific function of motherhood. Tit 2,4.11 depicts the ideal of the Christian woman, who is supposed to love her husband and her children. Some women are even recorded for their important role in educating their children in faith (2 Tim 1,5; ĺ4.3.2.1). A closer look at these passages shows, however, that the endorsement of motherhood has an ideological motivation. They express contemporary conventions about gender roles and they serve the exclusion of women from prominent roles in the community. Through this ideological bias these regulations come close to the treatment of motherhood in GrecoRoman sources. Yet, they also differ from these in several ways. In Greco-Roman antiquity, parental roles are commonly the subject of ideological discourse and are subordinated to the interests of the community, as reflected by a broad range of sources, from the Periclean Funeral Oration to the Augustan legislation. The philosophical assessment of marriage and procreation most often expresses the perspective of the man, for whom these are a duty (or, in some cases, an impediment to the wise). Motherhood is essentially treated under its biological and instrumental aspect. Without entertaining an uncritical optimism, one may suspect that authors of the Middle and Late Stoa discuss in more positive terms women’s ability to achieve moral virtue within the relationships that frame their life. Nevertheless, there are few sources treating motherhood as personal vocation. The advice to women in the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica, the Neopythagorean exhortations to women, just as Musonius’ arguments for women studying philosophy are noteworthy because they treat women as subjects of moral acts, who can be held accountable for their decisions and need to be persuaded to assume their gender-specific roles, motherhood included. A woman is said to be virtuous and to fulfil her role if she is loves her husband and children above all. This position may also be ideological, as it is often used to underpin self-effacement and relegation to the household. This ideology of maternal roles is at variance with the tenderness of maternal feelings, reflected in drama and in epitaphs. Compared to these sources, the PE reflect a similar interest in motherhood, as the most typical role of women. Yet, certain aspects of ancient propaganda are missing. The welfare of the community or the survival of the family are not an immediate concern. The valuation of motherhood exceeds that found in other ancient texts, except for some recollections of maternal feelings. Interestingly, the PE do not encourage men to assume parental roles. Only women are addressed. They are envisaged as moral subjects who can grow in virtue and can even take the path of salvation through this vocation. But this also means that only female roles are directly regulated. As the context of the various exhortations shows, the author’s purpose is to present motherhood as an alternative to teaching.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Do men have the authority to teach?

279

3.7 Do men have the authority to teach? As shown earlier, the ecclesiology of the PE defines the ekklƝsia as both an extended oikos and a public space, a Christian polis. Given the patriarchal features of the household-model, but also due to the definition of the public area as an eminently male space, in sum, given the fact that authority in both oikos and polis is a male attribute, the Pastorals assign offices in the ekklƝsia exclusively to men. It has also been shown that the teaching role is intrinsically connected to the (male) exercise of authority. These considerations elucidate the reasons for women’s prohibition from teaching. Yet, it has been less often considered that the process of institutionalisation also limits, even when to a lesser degree, the involvement of men in various roles in the ekklƝsia, more specifically in teaching. Although men are not explicitly prohibited to teach, it is far from evident that they may teach without exception. This role is in fact subjected, beyond institutionalisation, to various cultural factors. 3.7.1 Social background In contemporary society public speech was a male prerogative; nonetheless, it is not obvious that all men were entitled to exert this right. As discussed earlier, isegoria and parrhƝsia was the privilege of free, elite, wealthy, respectable citizens (ĺ3.4.2). During the Roman period, public speech was commonly associated with auctoritas, leadership and political offices. This already suggests that neither theory, nor practice automatically assigned the right to authoritative speech to just any man. The situation is not entirely different in the PE. The social background of recognised leaders, implied by the qualifications formulated in 1 Tim 3,1–13 and Tit 1,7–8 should be recalled. Leadership roles are defined by way of analogy with the position held by the head of a household and are based on the interrelation between the government of the oikos and of the community. The ability to secure order in the oikos becomes a necessary prerequisite for leadership and authority in the ekklƝsia. As shown earlier, given the qualifications expected from officeholders, there are good reasons to assume that these were free, better-off heads of households (ĺ1.3.1, 2.5.5). Even when wealth and status were not (explicit) requirements for holding offices in the church, these conditions were a bonus for those who aspired to office. If the oikos-ecclesiology, the assimilation of the role of the episkopos to that of the head of household and the unquestionable authority held by officials are set against the unconditional submission demanded from slaves (Tit 2,9–10; 1

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

280

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

Tim 6,1–2), it is improbable that leadership was assigned to slaves. At least not from the author’s perspective. Being exhorted to show full submission, slaves were obviously excluded from authority; this makes it very unlikely that they were thought to qualify for leadership and, implicitly, teaching. This being said, lower social status was very likely a factor that restricted men from acceding to offices and teaching. 3.7.2 The consequences of institutionalisation One of the conspicuous developments reflected by the Pastorals is the concentration of ecclesial functions in the hands of a few officials, paralleled by the relative lessening of other, earlier specified, especially charismatic ministries. In the same line, we have far fewer co-workers named and acknowledged for their involvement in the transmission of the gospel and in leadership, compared to those identified as such in the genuine epistles. No doubt, in the lifetime of Paul and even later communities were organised in quite different ways and had a variety of offices.1 This means that the large number of ministries named for instance in 1 Corinthians did not have to have its correspondent in other contemporary communities. Yet, it is clear that Paul took for granted a number of ministries in the communities in which he was engaged and named a significant number of collaborators who did not necessarily have an institutional position, yet were involved in different ministries. 1 Corinthians and Romans stand out in this respect. In 1 Corinthians Paul enumerates a quite important number of ministries and gifts, some of which reappear in later sources. We know foremost of apostles, prophets and teachers (dida,skaloi), listed together in 1 Cor 12,28.2 (The deutero-Pauline Eph 4,11 will add evangelists and pastors to the apparently foundational trias of apostles, prophets and teachers,3) Besides these, Corinthian Christians admittedly have various charismatic gifts: carrying out works of power (the enigmatic duna,meij, probably working of miracles4), healing, assistance 1

MEISER, “Institution”, 160 (different organisatoric models). Cf. prophets and teachers in Acts 13,1; apostles and prophets in Rev 18,20; prophets in Acts 11,27; 15,32; 21,9–10. The trias is thought to be specific for the Antiochean and the Pauline churches: TIWALD, “Entwicklungslinien”, 104–105, 110–111; KOCH, “ Entwicklung”, 174–175. 3 TIWALD, “Entwicklungslinien”, 113; KOCH, “Entwicklung der Ämter”, 178–179. It is not certain, however, that the three ministries only belong to a foundational period, and have no relevance at the time when Eph is written. 4 R. COLLINS, 1 Cor, 455. 2

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Do men have the authority to teach?

281

(avnti,lhmyij), leadership or administration (kube,rnhsij), as well as glossolalia and its interpretation (1 Cor 12,28–30). The inventory shows a mixture of charismatic ministries and some more formal roles that could be very cautiously denoted as “offices”.5 Some of these roles may have been specific to the Corinthian church, though some ministries and charismatic gifts may have existed in other communities, as well. This is shown by the record in Rom 12,6–8, naming prophecy, diakonia, teaching, exhorting, giving, leading (proi?sta,menoj) and (carrying out acts of) mercy. Prophecy is also envisaged in the early 1 Thess 5,20 and it seems to have quite widespread function in various churches, as attested by other sources.6 Other genuine epistles are less explicit with respect to offices. 1 Thess 5,12 has an unspecific reference to those who labour in the Lord and have charge of the community in the Lord (tou.j kopiw/ntaj evn u`mi/n kai. proi?stame,nouj u`mw/n evn kuri,w|). The sole coincidence between offices mentioned in a genuine epistle and in the PE concerns the episkopoi and diakonoi (Phil 1,1). Apart from references to charismatic ministries and other roles tending toward some stability in certain communities, we have several testimonials about persons involved in various ministries in the church, without holding an “office”. The importance of the two main collaborators, Timothy and Titus, will not be discussed here. They are clearly singled out in the PE because of their prominent position in the lifetime of Paul. In addition to them, however, several other individuals are known for their engagement in the life of individual communities or in the Pauline mission. In Philippians Paul names a number of collaborators who have promoted the gospel: Epaphroditus (2,25–27), Euodia, Syntyche and Clement, alongside other, anonymous co-workers (4,2–3). Rom 16 stands out through the large number of collaborators acknowledged because of their service to the gospel and to the community. In the long list of Christians receiving greetings from Paul, some are mentioned with a function (Phoebe, vv. 1–2, diakonos and prostatis), others as Paul’s co-workers, apostles and ministers of the gospel and/or hosts and leaders of the community (Prisca and Aquila, vv. 3–5; Maria, v. 6; Andronicus and Junia, v. 7; Urbanus, v. 9; Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis, v. 12; Gaius, v. 23).7 The number of references to such collaborators indicates that neither the task of transmitting the gospel and teaching, nor leadership roles are restricted to officials. Christians are all expected to share in the communication of faith and to participate in the life of the 5 For the problems with the term “office” in the time of Paul see NICKLAS, “Ämter?”, MEISER, “Institution”, 157, and the discussion of “offices” and “officials” in the PE in 1.3.2.2. 6 LUZ, “Stages of Early Christian Prophetism”, 45í62. 7 The roles of the women mentioned in Rom 16 will be discussed in 4.3.1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

282

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

community. As sometimes noted, during the lifetime of Paul leadership roles may be assumed through and because of engagement and commitment.8 This situation is changing during the time of the PE. The PE define ministries known from earlier sources in specific ways and neglect altogether some of the broadly attested ones. Whereas Paul still speaks of a plurality of apostles, a ministry clearly broader than that of the group of the Twelve, in the Pastorals there is a single apostle, a single authority, the paradigmatic Paul (1 Tim 1,1; 2,7; Tit 1,1; 2 Tim 1,1; 2,11). Apostles as holders of a specific ministry, as proclaimers of Christ (like Andronicus and Junia) are never mentioned. Further, there is no single reference to charismatic ministries, not even to prophets. It is not certain whether these have disappeared or they are deliberately overlooked. Probably, as a consequence of institutionalisation, prophets have become an “endangered species”.9 Whereas at earlier stages the function of prophet and teacher are intertwined, here, on the hypothesis that prophets do exist in reality, these roles are dissociated, as teaching is solely the role of episkopoi / presbyteroi.10 A prophet is mentioned only in Tit 1,12 and even there we have a pagan Cretan prophet condemning his own people. Prophecy appears only as a confirmation of the officially instituted ministers (1 Tim 1,18; 4,14). Charismas are mentioned only in 1 Tim 4,14 and 2 Tim 1,6 in relation to Timothy’s ordination, thereby designating the office-related charisma.11 The Spirit appears only in Tit 3,5, a traditional passage related to baptism and in 1 Tim 4,1, referring to the prophetic prediction of the impending manifestation of heresy.12 Thus, in the church of the Pastorals there is hardly place for charismatic ministries, notably for prophets, or for the Spirit acting through any member of the community. Charismatic speech is not encouraged.13 As for co-workers, the situation is also different. 2 Tim 4 lists a significant number of Christians from Paul’s entourage. Some of these are known from other sources as Paul’s fellow workers in the ministry of the gospel. However, here they are not explicitly identified as such. Luke and Mark appear as Paul’s co-workers in Phlm 1,24, together with Aristarchus and Demas. In 2 8 TIWALD, “Entwicklungslinien”, 121 (“Leitung durch Engegement”). MEISER adds the role of first generation Christians, of the first converts, of those showing greater availability in ministry, of heads of household, and those who gained authority through moral integrity (“Institution”, 159í160). 9 AUNE, Prophecy, 204. 10 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 177 (speaking of a previous “Personalunion”). On the attachment of teaching to leadership, also HÄFNER, “Nützlich zur Belehrung”, 144. 11 “Amtscharisma”, cf. OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 26, 28–29. 12 SCHLARB, Gesunde Lehre, 118. 13 DAUTZENBERG, Prophetie, 261.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Do men have the authority to teach?

283

Tim 4,11 Luke becomes a positive exemplum, standing for attachment to Paul, but he is not named as co-worker. Mark is apparently serviceable to Paul, not to the gospel. (Aristarchus, also mentioned in Col 4,10 and Acts 19,29; 20,4; 27,2, does not appear in the PE, whereas Demas becomes a negative exemplum in 2 Tim 4,10, having abandoned Paul).14 Prisca and Aquila, known from multiple sources for their ministry to the gospel, are not explicitly designated so, but appear in 2 Tim 4,19 merely as recipients of Paul’s greetings. Tychicus, known from Acts (20,4) and the deutero-Paulines (Col 4,7; Eph 6,21), has no apparent role, except for being sent by Paul to Ephesus (4,11; in Tit 3,12 he is a messenger of Paul). An Erastus (perhaps evoking the oivkono,moj th/j po,lewj of Rom 16,23), is mentioned in 4,10 with no function, as is the sick Trophimus (known from Acts 20,4; 21,29). 2 Tim 4,10–12 is essentially meant to depict the solitude and forsakenness of the apostle at the approach of martyrdom. Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia (4,21) are brothers and sisters sending greetings, yet, with no role mentioned. Onesiphoros appears only in 2 Tim (1,16; 4,19), but his role in the church is obscure. Conspicuously, only Timothy and Titus have an active role in the church, but they are in fact turned into paradigms of the church official. Although institutionalisation as such is an unavoidable phenomenon, one should not too easily assume that all the decisions taken during this process, including the elimination of charismatic authority and of personal engagement were conditions required for the stability of the Christian church.15 The institutionalisation of ministries leads to the concentration of leadership and teaching in one and the same office,16 a trend paralleled by the limitation of the roles carried out by others.17 Teaching is no longer perceived from a functional perspective, nor is it regarded as an autonomous ministry in the church: the dida,skaloi as such have either disappeared, or are discredited, as false teachers. From the perspective of the author teaching belongs to the tasks of the official who also carries out leadership. Teaching is the main attribution of “Timothy” (1 Tim 4,11–15; 6,3; 2 Tim 3,10), of “Titus” (Tit 2,1.7), both representing the type of the leader authorised by Paul, as well as of the episkopos / presbyteros (1Tim 3,2; 5,17; Tit 1,8–9). This means that teaching is the exclusive attribution of those who belong to the institution and thereby hold the authority which makes the u`giai,nousa didaskali,a. To put it simply, only men recognised as officials are expected and allowed to teach. 14

Luke and Demas send greetings in Col 4,14. Rightly, WAGENER, Ordnung, 62–63, 235. 16 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 170, 177–179. 17 MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor, 236 (speaking of the tendency of the leader “selbst alles in die Hand zu nehmen und die Kompetenzen anderer zu relativieren”). 15

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

284

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

Those outside the institution are disqualified through heavy polemic. Those discredited as false teachers are community members with a certain leadership role, recognised at least by some in the community.18 But their teaching is labelled as e`terodidaskalei/n (1 Tim 1,4; 6,3), or inappropriate teaching (Tit 1,11). It has been shown earlier that the virulent rejection of other teachers in the community is permeated by topoi borrowed from polemical rhetoric: the opponents are marked by enslavement to passions, greed, sickness, mental disorder, demonic influence, effeminacy, upsetting of social order, manipulation of women and flawed doctrine (ĺ1.2.2). These topoi hinder our access to the actual content of their teaching, but are all the more effective in creating abhorrence from these teachers’ position and person. The effectiveness of this polemic is shown by the number of modern commentators who subscribe to the perspective of the author. To be sure, the guiding principles become very clear. Those who belong to the institution are legitimised by the institution, by means of theology and “apostolic investiture”. Their teaching role is therefore appropriate. Those who are outside the institution are heretics and sinners and should be silenced (Tit 1,11; 1 Tim 1,3). The procedure of recruiting officials should also be considered. Several passages in the PE suggest that officeholders are to be appointed by those invested with appropriate authority by Paul (Tit 1,5; 1 Tim 4,14; 5,22; 2 Tim 2,2; cf. 1 Tim 1,3.18; 2 Tim 1,6; 4,5). This procedure of appointing leaders may not have necessarily reflected the actual practice in the community. To be sure, the author encourages the installation of officials by the leaders. The community gradually loses the possibility to designate its officials, or to have any say in the process. Women probably had a lesser responsibility already at earlier stages, but this process also limits the role of male members in appointing officials. Whereas Paul has had delegates sent with various ministries to the communities and endorsed the authority of certain local leaders, he does not appear to have imposed leaders in the churches he founded in such an exclusive manner, or to have formulated strict regulations about the appointment of officials.19 This does not mean that the Pauline churches had no leadership positions, being merely charismatic communities, or that Paul did not influence in any way the promotion of certain persons as leaders. But Paul does not mention that he has retained the right to appoint officials. The lack of regulations in this sense has been attributed to the fact that Paul himself had the main role in leading the churches and deciding over doctrinal and pastoral issues; thus full development of ministries and offices 18 19

TREBILCO, Early Christians, 211–212. MEISER, “Institution”, 161. This attribution appears in Acts (14,23), not in the genuine epistles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Do men have the authority to teach?

285

became necessary only after the death of the apostle.20 No doubt, in many cases Paul speaks and acts with obvious personal authority. On the other hand, however, he clearly takes for granted the various leadership roles exerted by different persons in the communities – the Thessalonian and Roman proi?stame,noi (1 Thess 5,12; Rom 12,8), the Philippian episkopoi and diakonoi (Phil 1,1), the Corinthian and Roman apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Cor 12,28; Rom 12,6–7; 16,7) – without apparent intervention in their appointment. As opposed to this practice, in the PE leadership and teaching can be carried out only by those who are part of the institution and are recognised as such by the author. The introduction to ministry referred to in 1 Tim 4,14 and 2 Tim 1,6, despite its contradictions, creates the legitimation of the existing leaders.21 Those introduced to office by the body of presbyteroi (1 Tim 4,14) are legitimised via Timothy’s fictitious appointment by Paul. This means that those men who cannot prove their legitimacy through their belonging to the recognised chain of leaders will have no right to teach. The content of the teaching and the lifestyle of the candidates are further factors limiting men’s involvement in leadership. Orthodoxy is an essential criterion associated with those men who are entitled to teach. Yet, as shown already, the PE give very little information about the content of the teachings proffered by the opponents (ĺ3.2). The best guess seems to be that they embraced an ascetic version of Christianity. Thus it seems that those men who are labelled by the author as opponents and heterodox teachers, more specifically those advocating asceticism, are excluded from teaching. 3.7.3 Summary Although men are not altogether excluded from public teaching qua men, a number of conditions circumscribe the group of those men who actually have a say in the community and are allowed to teach. Dautzenberg has rightly noted that teaching is conditioned by patriarchal concepts like the priority of man and the strict separation between sexes, which lead to teaching being principially reserved for men.22 This principle does not 20

ROLOFF, Kirche, 132. Noting the contradiction between 1 Tim 4,14 and 2 Tim 1,6, OBERLINNER argues that in different ways both passages stress tradition and continuity. 1 Tim probably reflects the practice in the author’s time, but it also implies that presbyteroi, too, have received their authority from Paul (2 Tim, 28–30). 22 DAUTZENBERG, Prophetie, 261. Whether this indeed implies a Jewish background for the regulations, is another question. 21

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

286

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

mean that all men are invited to actively participate in teaching and leadership. This role may be fulfilled only by a few, qualified and respectable men, whereas other men are subordinated to their authority. Just as in contemporary society public speech and office-holding is the attribution of men belonging to the elite, in the Pastorals, as suggested by the qualification lists, the officials are seen as naturally coming from free, better situated community members. Slaves, through their complete subordination to masters, are principially deprived of authority. Whether in reality some slaves did hold offices is another issue. What matters here is the ideological restriction of authority. Second, due to an increasing institutionalisation, the right to teach is strictly circumscribed and becomes the exclusive task of officials recognised as such. The right to teach pertains exclusively to the episkopoi / presbyteroi. Charismatic ministries are no longer admitted. Prophets, apostles and teachers have either disappeared, or (more probably) are ignored. Those who teach without being able to prove their legitimacy through their belonging to the institution are qualified as false teachers and their authority is seriously challenged through grave accusations. All the more so, if these teachers promote an ascetic lifestyle. The actual situation was probably much more complex, but we only know the views of the author.

3.8 Conclusion In the Pastorals teaching is one of the most important attributions of the official. This chapter has explored the conditions required for teaching doctrinal contents in the community and the reasons for which women are prohibited to teach. The investigation has shown that teaching is a matter of authority. The authority to teach is defined from the perspective of a specific ecclesiology. As a form of authoritative public speech, teaching requires legitimacy, ensured by institutional position, orthodoxy, moral probity and male gender. Age and socioeconomic status are additional factors. Two particular conditions have received special attention, the issue of orthodoxy and of gender. Commentators commonly argue that the opponents, just as women belonging to their circle, were teaching heretical doctrines and this was the essential reason that lead to the silencing of the opponents and to the exclusion of women from teaching. These views were questioned here. (1) The PE offer insufficient information about the nature of the theological views held by those qualified as heterodox teachers and the rhetorical attacks undermining their authority are so virulent, and the charges include topoi typical for ancient polemics to such an extent that we can hardly reconstruct their beliefs. It seems likely that they embraced an ascetic version

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Conclusion

287

of Pauline tradition. It is far from certain that the “opponents” were defending a Gnostic system. In a sense, the “orthodoxy” created by the author, centred on marriage, childbearing and social conformity, is a relecture of Paul, against ascetic tendencies. (2) The view that women were teaching heresy is questionable for three reasons. (a) As noted above, we cannot know with certitude the contents of alternative teachings and it is debatable whether the asceticism promoted by certain groups should be qualified as heresy. (b) Supposedly, some women did belong to the group of those labelled as opponents, but, remarkably, they are never explicitly said to teach heterodoxy. It is not impossible that some women did embrace and promote ascetic views, but we have too little evidence to claim that they taught (Gnostic) heresy. (c) Male opponents are silenced, but men as such are not banned from teaching. Conversely, the prohibition in 1 Tim 2,12 addresses women in general and does not concern merely a number of alleged heterodox female teachers. Consequently, we need to look for other reasons behind this interdiction. (3) On the hypothesis that some women did serve in responsible positions and did teach in the community, they were likely exercising authority and speaking in public. A look at the cultural background has shown that ancient mentality strictly associated authority and speech in general, all the more public speech, with men. In contemporary society public roles involving authority, decision-making, speech and teaching were functions pertaining to male elites. Even in the household the man was defined as the teacher of his wife. We have extremely scant evidence for women speaking in public and exercising authority in an accepted way. The only sphere where women did speak in public and had certain authority was that of religion. Inspired speech was the most typical expression of this authority (an issue to which I shall return, ĺ4.2.4.4). Otherwise, authority and public speech were incompatible with the female condition. This means that women were barred from teaching and authority for cultural and social reasons. If female teachers taught what the author would have otherwise considered the purest “orthodoxy”, the very fact that they taught made them worthy of blame. (4) The argument from creation and the fall buttresses male superiority and authority and provides the prohibition with the strongest possible legitimacy. This argument reflects an essentialist understanding of gender roles, comparable to that found in other ancient authors who ground the division of spaces and roles in human nature and/or divine will. The narrative about the created inferiority and the fallen condition of the woman are used in the same manner as ancient myths about the evil female nature – to keep women in their place.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

288

The authority to teach in the Pastoral Epistles

(5) Since gender roles are rooted in divine will, women are said to fulfil their vocation and to achieve salvation by carrying out their gender-specific role, i.e. through marriage and childbearing. Motherhood is assessed in more positive terms than in many other ancient sources. Yet, maternity is used in an ideological manner. Whereas men fulfill their Christian vocation by holding responsible roles in the public sphere, women should achieve salvation through childbearing. Motherhood is thus an alternative to teaching and to public roles in general. (6) Men are not automatically allowed to teach. Male teachers are accepted only if they belong to the ranks of accepted officials, if they are recognised as having “apostolic” investiture. Men with a higher standing seem to have better chances. It is hard to imagine that slaves may hold the necessary authority. One should not forget, though, that the regulations imposed by the PE, presupposing the separation of spaces and roles, are part of a prescriptive discourse which aims at changing an existing ecclesial practice. Reality was quite different. The contrast between ideology and reality is an intriguing one. Certainly, the reconstruction of the manner in which public and private roles were fulfilled in the community of the PE is tentative, especially due to the polemical character of our source. However, it is worth confronting ideology with indices showing how ideology is challenged in reality. While the PE attempt to restrict women’s public roles by means of an ideology similar to that which operated in the Greco-Roman world, it is more than likely that they do so precisely because women assumed certain public roles, certainly in society and very probably in the ekklƝsia as well. When comparing Greco-Roman sources that promote women’s seclusion and silencing and create the image of the ideal wife – the modest and submissive matrona who lives solely for and through her family – with women’s real life, both the limits and the power of ideology become apparent. The limits are evident, since reality is more complex than ideology wishes. Yet, the symbolic separation of public and private spaces (and implicitly of gender roles) not only creates the male and female ideal realm that has to be revived, but, as any ideology, it also influences politics that attempt to ascertain these distinctions. It does attempt to create or to strengthen a social order based on delineation, seclusion, exclusion and hierarchy. In what follows I will look at the contrast between ideological discourse and reality in society and in the ekklƝsia. I will also show that additional conditions explain the exclusion of women from the public religious sphere, the only generally accepted public presence in Greco-Roman antiquity: the focus on teaching doctrine at the cost of ritual, the absence of priesthoods and the lack of interest in inspired-prophetic speech.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

4. Women on the Public Stage. Going Against an Ideology of Exclusion

The station codes and church orders of the PE build on the division of spaces and roles. However, these codes have a marked prescriptive character. The distinction between male and female spheres is the same as that argued by political theorists and moral philosophers. The PE share the same idealisedideological representation of the world. Literary sources offer an image of the world and articulate what men and women should or should not do, but seldom what they actually do.1 In real life, however, even in the most restrictive societies, boundaries are sometimes crossable. This was particularly true in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. This chapter explores the contrast between reality and ideology in society and in the ekklƝsia. The discussion has two aims. First, it shows that the exclusion of women from public religious roles in the ekklƝsia goes to a certain extent against a more permissive contemporary practice. In the Hellenistic and Roman period (especially elite) women acquire important positions in the religious and even in the social sphere, acting as priestesses of various cults, as respected benefactors and even holding certain magistracies. Second, the prohibition of public teaching reflects the traditional ideology of exclusion, against a more gender-inclusive ecclesial practice, attested to by the genuine epistles of Paul and indirectly by the PE themselves. These aspects are of major interest for the cultural and social background of the regulations issued by the PE. They show that the rules laid down for the church in an urban environment, probably in Western Asia Minor, are more restrictive than contemporary social and ecclesial practice. They come closer to the position of ideological writings that theorise the exclusion of women from the public sphere, based on an essentialist definition of roles. In what follows I will explore the manner in which boundaries are crossed, notwithstanding ideology. After addressing the challenge to the traditional separation of spaces in literary sources (ĺ4.1), I will turn to evidence on real life. The discussion will progress from less remarkable aspects, like visibility through labour, socialisation and women assuming financial responsibility 1

SHAW, “Female Intruder”, 25; ØKLAND, Women, 58–64.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

290

Women on the public stage

(ĺ4.2.1), to more significant undertakings, like carrying out benefactions and holding magistracies (ĺ4.2.2–3) and, most notably, public religious roles (ĺ4.2.4). While some of these aspects are mentioned under different headings for reasons of clarity, in reality they were often connected. Priestesses often came from the better-off and they could hold civic magistracies and act as benefactors in Asia Minor. In the final sections of this chapter I will look into the contrast between ideology and reality in the PE, trying to identify the functions probably held by women in the church (ĺ4.3.2.3) and the influence of better-off women in the community (ĺ4.3.3).

4.1 The reversal of gender roles on the stage and in political theories In theory the division of spaces and roles expresses conventions about an exclusively male public sphere and about the need to relegate women to the household. These conventions are already questioned in ancient literature. Fiction and political theories attest a lively debate on gender roles and on the divide between public and private space. The “ideal” delimitation of gender roles appears to be challenged by various authors from the classical period onward. Plato’s Republic, with its quite unorthodox views, is notorious and widely discussed, but it is only part of an ample literature that includes drama and other political theoretical works. In a less conventional manner, I shall not start with the political theory of Plato, but with the Old Comedy. The stance of comedy to the reversal of gender roles will be weighed against similar views expressed in Plato’s political theoretical writings. Both discuss certain aspects of Doric (Spartan and Cretan) constitutions and reflect debates concerning the roles of women at the transition to the fourth century, determined by contemporary demographic and social changes. The debate will extend into the Hellenistic and Roman period. The more permissive Spartan customs concerning female roles and rights will be censured by Aristotle and his criticism will be repeated much later by Plutarch. The reiteration of these themes in the imperial period shows the persistence of these mentalities. Nonetheless, the Hellenistic period will lead to a significant shift in the perception of women’s public presence. Later on, first and second century CE Stoics like Musonius or Hierocles will further the discussion on gender roles, making slight concessions. Although some of these sources are distant in time from the PE, they deserve a closer look, because they show how deeply this divide between private and public, between male and female roles was rooted in collective

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The reversal of gender roles on the stage and in political theories

291

thought, but also the extent to which these views could be challenged even in the most traditionally-minded societies. Drama and political theories illustrate different perspectives on the topic that emerged long before the often cited first-century CE emancipation of Roman women. These discussions actually prepared the social developments of the Hellenistic period. They also show that ideological sources that state a strict division of spaces could co-exist with other writings which questioned this standpoint. Plays like Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae depict a world turned upside down, where women intrude into the public sphere.2 They do so because of men’s failure to secure peace (Lys.), or in order to promote social welfare (Eccl.).3 Aristophanes envisages a society shaken by conflicts, where moral values are threatened by certain (male) attitudes,4 and, as a result, traditional roles are re-assessed. Matters like the corruption and greed of the governing class or the consequences of wars on polis and oikos were real concerns, even when addressed in a comedy.5 Therefore, in spite of the genre, the questions surfacing in the plays are serious. Under such circumstances, in the plays at least, women leave the walls of the oikos and take over the affairs of the polis in a radical attempt to save family and society.6 In comedy the crossing of boundaries and the reversal of social conventions becomes possible.7 The main female characters, Lysistrata and Praxagora enter into the public sphere and act like men. They take over political government and provide for social welfare (Eccl.), they manage public funds and charge themselves with the defence of the city (Lys.). 2

For a discussion of the plays see TAAFFE, Aristophanes, esp. 48–73, 103–133; FINNEGAN, Women (1995); ROTHWELL, Politics and Persuasion (1990); FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 1–21; POMEROY, Goddesses, 112–119. 3 See SHAW, “Female Intruder”, 266, on the conflict between male and female qualities and on women’s role in promoting the values preserved in the oikos. His model of sheer opposition between oikos and polis is criticised by FOLEY and completed with that of dialectic opposition and mutual determination of the two spaces (“Female Intruder”, 1–3, passim). 4 Public finances are burdened by personal interests (Eccl. 206–207). Military ambitions are met at the cost of the oikos: women pay the tribute of warfare with their own children. 5 Especially during the Peloponnesian War (and after the disastrous Sicilian expedition): ROTHWELL, Politics, 1–5; TAAFFE, 72; FARAONE, “Salvation”, 56. On the serious implications of these comedies see already GOMME, “Aristophanes”, 97–109. 6 In the Lys. the reversal of roles lasts only until the resolution of the crisis. Eccl. closes with no reference to the end of women’s rule, thus the reversal might seem permanent. Yet, some details suggest that the communism of possessions and partners is untenable, and this may imply that the gunaikokrati,a itself, which created the system, will be abolished. However, if one considers that the “communist” utopia is also defended by Plato, without being connected to women’s rule, the two issues can be treated separately. 7 Women dress like men (Eccl.), and men are dressed as women (the proboulos in Lysistr., the husbands in Eccl.). Men are told to keep silent (Lys. 529), and are defined through their wife. Blephyrus follows Praxagora, expecting to be regarded as to.n th/j strathgou/; Eccl. 725–727.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

292

Women on the public stage

They engage in open debate, contradict and teach their male partners or opponents.8 Yet, although women assume male functions, they do not really step out of their typical roles.9 In Ecclesiazusae women are in charge of the enlarged oikos, performing their traditional roles. Praxagora’s utopian government is an extension of the household management to the larger scale of the polis. Women are supposed to be able to save the polis precisely because they run the oikos successfully.10 Athens becomes a single household, in which everything is common.11 (We have here another instance where the oikosmetaphor is used to describe the polis and the two social entities are envisaged as interdependent.) By contrast, men are reduced to an infantile condition, to a life of idleness, with no social and political roles.12 While comical and at times absurd, the Ecclesiazusae has serious aspects. The extension of the model of household-management to the entire society is expected to eliminate corruption and criminality and to make legislative, executive and military functions superfluous. Praxagora’s utopia draws upon the view that the oikos is a community of material and social interests, where women share in responsibilities,13 a model extended here to the polis. Aristophanes would have hardly promoted women’s right to assume political functions. Nonetheless the implied interdependence between oikos and polis and the seriousness of the social conflicts behind the play seem to suggest a growing awareness of women’s contribution to the welfare of the oikos and, implicitly, of the polis.14 The overt criticism of men’s failure in the public 8

Praxagora’s plans are several times approved. Chremes admits: eu= ge dida,skei (Eccl. 662). See CAREY, “Aristophanes Lysistrate 637”, 148–149; FINNEGAN, Women in Aristophanes, 153. One of the women joining the ekklƝsia dressed as a man plans to card wool (Eccl. 89), the most typical female task in antiquity (Ar., Lys. 519; cf. Xen., Oec. 7,6.22; Pl., Leg. 7, 805E, Colum., Res rustica, 12, praef. 8–9, and numerous epitaphs describing the deceased as lanificia: CIL VI, 10230 = ILS 8394; CIL VI, 41062; CIL I2, 1211). See also POMEROY, Oeconomicus, 60– 64, 270, 274; SCHULTZ, Religious Activity, 132. 10 Praxagora’s apology of the gunaikokrati,a emphasises that women will continue to perform their traditional roles: they will provide for food, clothing, sexual gratification and childrearing, only at a larger scale. Eccl. 210–212; cf. also Lys. 493–494. 11 Eccl. 674 (to. mi,an oi;khsin poih,sein). 12 The ridicule of this situation is all the more striking when read against the traditional Greek ideal of men as brave warriors and astute politicians. 13 Compare Xen., Oec. 7.17, 27–28, 32–38 (the metaphor of the queen bee), 39–41 (shared responsibilities); 9.15 (the wife as nomofu,laka). On the economic and executive responsibility of the wife: FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 7, 16; POMEROY, Oikonomikos, 34; TSOUYOPOULOS, “Oikos”, 43. On the interdependence between oikos and polis see also ROTHWELL, Politics, 16–17. This does not mean that Aristophanes depends on Xenophon; both plays were written earlier. (Lys. ca. 411, Eccl. 392/391, Oec. ca. 362): SOMMERSTEIN, “Aristophanes”, 112–126; TAAFFE, Aristophanes, 48, 103. 14 On the changing perspective on women at the transition to the 4th century: ROTHWELL, Politics, 21–22; HENDERSON, “Women”, 145 (“in the new intellectualism, spurred by the pressures of a 9

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The reversal of gender roles on the stage and in political theories

293

sphere, with its consequences on the oikos, is paired with the recognition of women’s citizenship.15 The main characters demonstrate leadership skills and oratorical talents (Praxagora), both male attributes dependent on education.16 Further, Lysistrata envisages women’s accepted presence in the public religious sphere.17 The plays may thus reflect a slowly changing society.18 The Ecclesiazusae also tackles the legitimacy of innovation.19 Aristophanes seemingly argues for the preservation of tradition, that would logically keep women out of the public sphere. However, Praxagora contends that women are able to manage the affairs of the polis precisely because of their sense of continuity.20 Thus it is not easy to tell where continuity in tradition is maintained. Men have failed in their tasks. Conversely, women have proved their sense of continuity and their ability to secure a functioning community through their successful household management. On the other hand, their intrusion into the public sphere is rather comical. Moreover, Praxagora’s communism proves to be untenable. It is therefore unclear whether Aristophanes wishes to strengthen traditional boundaries, or proposes a critical view of this strict delineation, sympathising with the main characters.21 Because of the critical function of comedy, the plays possibly express a critical view on stereotypes and on social conventions.22

developing democracy and a great war, traditional attitudes toward women were questioned along with other traditional beliefs”); MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 15. 15 They pay taxes through their sons delivered to the army (Lys. 651); they feel responsible for both family and the city (Lys. 29–30, 341–343, Eccl. 173–175, 194). 16 In some circles women accede to education and intellectual life (ROTHWELL, Politics, 22). 17 On women’s religious roles and on the cult as potential space of concord between sexes in drama: FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 8–12; GOULD, “Law”, 50–51. On ritual crossing of gender boundaries: CSAPO, “Riding”, 253–295. On the heroicisation of the female characters in Lys., paralleled with myths where women obtain (political, military, social and personal, religiouseschatological) salvation: FARAONE, (“Salvation”, 38–59). 18 The Peloponnesian War produced significant demographic changes, leading to a relatively dominant female component. On the social background of Eccl. see TAAFFE, Aristophanes, 129– 133, FINNEGAN, Women, 150–151; ROTHWELL, Politics, 20–21. On the context of Lys. see SOMMERSTEIN, “Aristophanes”, 112–126. 19 The gunaikokrati,a may be considered because it is the only model that has not yet been tried in Athens (Eccl. 455–457). In Chremes’ view, this mad decree may have a positive outcome (Eccl. 474–476). Yet, Greeks are criticised for their innovation, and their disdain of tradition (kainotomei/n, tw/n d’avrcai,wn avmelh/sai). Blepyrus’ approval of Praxagora (Eccl. 583–584) is a parody of this idea. 20 They perform their tasks just as they always did (kata. to.n avrcai/on no,mon)/, Eccl. 215–228). 21 TAAFFE argues for the former (Aristophanes, 19, 20, 57, passim). Yet, HENDERSON is probably right that theatre did address women’s concerns as well, even if it was focused on men (“Women”, 135, 145–146). It is doubtful that Aristophanes simply joked at the cost of women and reinforced gender roles (rightly, FINNEGAN, Women, 161). He did not seriously promote a gunaikokrati,a, yet it would be too simplistic to claim that these works merely ridicule women’s public roles. Pace TAAFFE, 21, 132. The depiction of the characters, men and women, is ambivalent and critical throughout, and addresses the stereotypical failures of both sexes (GARDNER, “Aristophanes and Male Anxiety”, 51–62; FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 10–11; TAAFFE, 54–55). 22 As FOLEY says, “drama, by allowing these social inversions to take place and by allowing characters to criticize explicitly or implicitly the way the relation between oikos and polis or male and

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

294

Women on the public stage

A quite similar questioning of gender roles is notoriously argued in Plato’ Republic (in connection with a utopian communism),23 and it is depicted, in a different manner, in Xenophon’s Lacedaemonian Constitutions. These authors, in their turn, draw from contemporary Dorian constitutions. This connection suggests that in some societies women were allowed to assume new roles, to attain education and to carry out public responsibilities.24 Comedy and political theory largely overlap.25 Plato’s utopia is the most radical, eliminating spousal and parental relations.26 Although some suggest that Socrates (Plato) could not have seriously advocated such changes,27 Xenophon’s Lacedaemonian Constitutions show that this utopian government was inspired by existing models.28 Xenophon’s appraisal of Lycurgus’ legislation mentions a number of aspects proposed by Plato in his Republic and portrayed in the Ecclesiazusae.29 These utopian societies recall elements of the female is organized in Greek society, unsettles our sense of the stability of these relations and of the legitimacy of the spatial and sexual division of functions that they support.” (“Female Intruder”, 5). 23 Both Aristophanes and Plato suggest, more or less seriously, that the abolition of private property will eradicate the very cause of dissent, inequalities and conflict (Eccl. 616–617, 628– 629, 674–675, passim; Resp. 464 B-E). Both envisage sexual communism (Eccl. 613–614; Resp. 457CD). See also POMEROY, Goddesses, 115–119; FINNEGAN, Women, 155–161. Much later Plutarch also refers to the elimination of jealousy through Spartan marital regulations (Lyc. 15.6, Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.1–2). 24 Resp. 452AB (with 451C-E), 455A-C, 456A-C, 457C. Both sexes may contribute to the government of the polis (to the question ouvde,n evstin evpith,deuma i;dion gunaiki. pro.j dioi,khsin po,lewj; 455B, he replies with 456A: kai. gunaiko.j a;ra kai. avndro.j h` auvth. fu,sij eivj fulakh.n po,lewj, with the difference that women are weaker). The cost of shared public responsibility is promiscuity. For a witty discussion of Plato’s views: WENDER, “Plato: Misogynist, Paedophile and Feminist”, 221–228. 25 In Aristophanes and Plato the government has the right to regulate sexuality, procreation and education: Eccl. 616, 617, 626–629; Resp. 460E–461A (eugenics and population control); compare Leg. 6, 774AB; 784 AB; 794B passim. The oikos disappears. Children belong to and are raised by the community (Eccl. 636; Resp. 459D, 460B-D). The elimination of private property leads to the dissolution of the family. See also ROTHWELL, Politics, 10. 26 Parents need not know their children, nor children their parents (Resp. 457D, 460D, 461 CD, cf. Eccl. 635–636, 649). Aristophanes’ communism is comical, but also intriguing. Plato’s utopia, even when grounded in existing social models, is rather inhuman. His communism is an instrument of manipulation, for the undisturbed cohesion of the guardians. The Laws are more reasonable. 27 SAXONHOUSE, “Family”, 20. 28 Aristophanes’ sympathy for the Spartans, in Lys., is noted by FINNEGAN, Women, 159 (the supposition that in Eccl. he offers a parody of the Spartan society, to bar contemporary criticism of his views seems unlikely). See also Plut., Lyc. for a similar sympathy. 29 The government regulates sexuality and marriage, promotes eugenics and open sexual relations for procreation (Lac. 1.5–8; Plut., Lyc. 15.6–9, 16.1). Education is a task of the community (Lac. 2.10, cf. 6.1–2). Private property is abolished (Lac. 6.3). (The redistribution of the land into equal klh/roi in Plut., Lyc. 8.1–4 envisages equality, not common property.) Similar physical training is prescribed for men and women (Lac. 1.4, cf. Resp. 451D–452B, 456C–457C). Human legislation receives divine confirmation (the oracle of Delphi: Lac. 8.3, cf. Resp. 461E; Leg. 624A). On the importance of Apollo and Delphi in Plato’s Laws: MORROW, Cretan City, 405–411. Cretan law was

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The reversal of gender roles on the stage and in political theories

295

Spartan and Cretan constitutions.30 In Crete the legal rights of women were better represented.31 Spartan society was also known for its uncommon position with respect to gender roles, marriage32 and (female) education. In the Laws Plato gives up the community of property and wives, but the emancipation of women is still an issue. They may accede to equal education,33 and even hold some magistracies.34 Some suggested legal provisions on women, though not far-reaching, are more favourable when compared to those of Athenian law.35 Sometimes Plato’s position regarding women is assessed in too optimistic terms,36 as he does not seem to include women among the holders of higher offices.37 He admits though that women may thought to be inspired by Zeus (Leg. 624A). Yet, similarities are sometimes overestimated; cf. POMEROY, Spartan Women, 2, 3–4, 12–19, 24–25, 27–29. 30 On these constitutions as source of inspiration for Plato: Resp. 452CD; Arist., Pol. 2.2.10, 1263B–1264A. For a comparison between the Spartan and Cretan social and educational system: WILLETTS, Cretan Cults, 45–49. On the Cretan and Spartan sussi,tia as means of education, and on Plato’s view that it needs to be extend to women (Leg. 781AB, 806E): MORROW, Cretan City, 389– 398. On Plato’s interest in Crete and his ambivalent position toward Sparta: MORROW, 17–35, 40–41, and 45–63. Such utopia is also promoted by the Stoics (Zeno, Chrysippus), and by the Cynics (Diogenes), cf. at least Diog. Laert. 7.131; POMEROY, Goddesses, 117, 241. 31 Though excluded from the hetaireia, women enjoyed, in Cretan law, more economic freedom and a higher degree of self-determination. See WILLETTS, Law Code , esp. 23–27. Marriages were here, too, controlled by the state (ID., Cretan Cults, 47; Law Code, 18, 23–27). 32 POMEROY, Spartan Women, 37–37, 46. 33 Leg. 7, 804E–806D, 813E–814C. 34 Supervisors of marriages and superintendents of education assisting the chief supervisor of education. Leg. 6, 784A-C; 7, 794BC, 813C; 9, 930A, 932B. 35 On the changes concerning property and family, on women’s education and offices: MORROW, Cretan City, 104, 198, 329–331, 332, n. 118, 382–383, 439. For other rights: MORROW, 121 (the right of a widowed or divorced woman to bring an action to court, 937A; the right of an epikleros with no next-of-kin to claim her to choose her husband, 925A-C), and the more favourable laws on divorce, 784B, 929E–930C). See also Ch. H. KAHN’S foreword to the volume, xxiii, xxvii. 36 “Women are to share with men, to the greatest extent possible, in all the activities and duties of the state. Honors and dignities are open to them equally with men (802a)” (MORROW, Cretan City, 331, cf. 329, n. 112, referring to Leg. 804D, 805C, cf. 805A). This is an overstatement. He reaches this conclusion by corroborating Leg. 805C-D (“the female sex must share with the male, to the greatest extent possible, both in education and in all else”) with 802A (enkomia shall be shared equally by men and women). Yet, none of these texts deals with offices. Leg. 802A, read with 801E, states that bestowal of honours (evgkomi,oij te kai, u[mnoij tima/n) on “citizens who have attained the goal of life (te,loj tou/ bi,ou) and have wrought with body or soul noble works (e;rga kala,)” (801E) shall be equally assigned to men and women “who have been conspicuous for their excellence” (avgaqoi/j kai. avgaqai/j). But 802A refers to the post-mortem recognition of excellence and perseverance in virtuous life; their bestowal during one’s lifetime, before one’s moral completion, should be resisted. Similarly, Leg. 805C-D (even when read from 802A, itself inaccurately thought to refer to dignities), can hardly be a proof, since the immediate context concerns education and genderspecific pursuits (wool-working, nurture of children, versus military exertions). 804DE speaks of education, not honours and dignities. 37 The astynoi, the nomothetes and nomophylakes, the supreme supervisor of education, or the members of the Nocturnal Council.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

296

Women on the public stage

hold some responsible public functions, like priesthoods38 and certain gender-specific magistracies.39 The roles assigned to women outside Athens, their unconventional social presence, their boldness and economic welfare40 have raised strong criticism. Aristotle’s judgment on Spartan society, targeting women’s authority over men, their economic power and indulgence, offers another perspective on the debate.41 Criticism of Spartan permissiveness concerning women’s rights, education and public presence reflects the enduring fear that women will step out of their role when granted more liberty. For these reasons Plutarch will reiterate much later the critique of Spartan customs.42 Although censured by traditionally-minded authors, the Spartan legislation shows that outside Athens women were allowed a larger share of self-determination. On the other hand, the writings of Aristophanes and Plato suggest that on the threshold of the Hellenistic period views on women slowly started to change. Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle are remote in time from the PE, yet, the discussion is not irrelevant. Plato and Aristotle remained influential even in the imperial period, as shown by the rehearsal of some of their views in Plutarch.43 As to Aristophanes, the matters is more complicated. His plays were performed for roughly one century, to give way to the New Comedy. It may seem therefore doubtful that the issues he raised could still influence first to second century debates. Yet, beyond some evidence for the revival of the Old Comedy in Roman times, the references to Aristophanes in Quintilian, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Aelius Aristides, Lucian and others show that he was read throughout the Empire, even in the second century CE.44 Therefore these debates continued to mark moral-philosophical reflections up to the imperial period. Moreover, Plato’s (and Aristophanes’) idea that women could accede to certain offices started to turn into reality in the Hellenistic period, an issue addressed later in this chapter. 38

`Ierh/j kai. i`e,reiai is a recurrent formula (741C, 759A, 790B, 800B, 909D, 947D; see also 759D on priestesses). By admitting women to priesthood, unlike Aristotle, Plato follows common Greek custom (MORROW, Cretan City, 413–415). 39 Of these, that of the supervisor of marriages seems to be the most important, in view of her authority to supervise, and even to prosecute and exact fines on non-compliant parties. 40 POMEROY, Spartan Women, 76–84. 41 Pol. 2, 1269B–1270A (Spartan women allegedly owned almost two fifths of the land); see also Plut., Agis 7.3. On their political influence: POMEROY, Spartan Women, 87–89, 92–93. 42 Plut., Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.3–6. 43 On Platonic and Aristotelian/Peripatetic influence on Plutarch: HERSHBELL, “Plutarch’s Political Philosophy”, 151–162. On the comparison of the reports of Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and Plutarch: MOSSÉ, “Women in the Spartan Revolution”, 138–153. 44 HALL, “Aristophanic Laughter”, 6–8, 28, n. 36; BOWIE, “Ups and Downs”, 32–50 (evidence from Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Aelius Aristides, Lucian, Maximus of Tyre, Pausanias, Athenaeus).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

297

4.2 The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world 4.2.1 Women in everyday life. Visibility due to labour, socialisation and financial responsibility The crossing of gender boundaries was possible to some extent even in the most restrictive societies. This was at times more obvious for women of lesser means, from families whose economic condition did not permit full seclusion.1 Presence outside the house was related to sharing in agricultural work alongside male relatives, paid labour, small market or commercial activities, but it also included various forms of socialising, among which participation in religious life was the most prominent occasion. Some suggest that external markers preserving separation, such as for instance the wearing of the veil, explain this crossing of boundaries, the discreet feminine public presence and implicitly the contrast between an ideology of seclusion and reality.2 This practice may probably account for many situations, but not for all, since women’s public religious role for instance was accepted in itself and not because of a sort of artificial seclusion created by the veil. Several authors have reassessed the evidence for female employment.3 Against biased, ideological representations of female labour in literary sources, which characterise women’s work outside the household as indecent or proper to marginal groups and barbarian people, epigraphic and other sources attest the reality of accepted female employment. A number of jobs, like those of textile workers or wetnurses, entailed the professional exercise of domestic tasks. Occupations like those of nurses, midwives and physicians were often the object of warm appreciation.4 In Asia Minor 1 Although GOULD, “Law”, 48 suggested (to be sure, for the classical period) “that such activity may not have been seen as a normal part of the female role and that its exceptional nature may have been marked by some residual sense of a boundary still separating them and marking them off from the strange males with whom they must have come face to face”. 2 LLEWELLYN-JONES, Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 1, 4, 198–201, 208. 3 BROCK, “Labour”, 336–346; WAGNER-HASEL, “Arbeit”, 311–335; SCHEIDEL, “Most Silent Women” (1995), 202–217; (1996), 1–10; TREGGIARI, “Jobs for Women”, 76–104; SALLER, “Women, Slaves”, 185–204; ROWLANDSON, Women and Society, no. 169 (231–232, P.Fay. 91, a woman’s contract to work in the oil-press of L. Bellenus Gemellus, 99 CE); no. 202–203 (pp. 266– 267, P.Cair.Zen. II.59295, 250 BCE, and BGU X.1942, 2nd–1st cent. BCE – textile-workers), no. 204 (pp. 267–269, 140 CE, Stud.Pal. XXII.40 – apprenticeship of a slave girl to a master weaver), no. 213 (p. 275, BGU IV.1058, 13 BCE – contract for a wet-nurse). Egyptian examples are more numerous from the 2nd and 3rd cent. CE onward. On female labour attested by the inscriptions accompanying dedications: DILLON, Girls, 15–17. 4 BROCK, “Labour”, 336–337; POMEROY, Families, 133 (the gravestone of Phanostrate of Melite, midwife and physician, IG II2, 6873 = PH9227). On female physicians and midwives: FLEMMING, “Women, Writing”, 257–279 (esp. 259–261). On the more theoretical approach to the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

298

Women on the public stage

some epitaphs from the imperial period commemorate female medical professionals (iatroi or archiatroi).5 A similar picture emerges from Roman funerary inscriptions attesting a number of female occupations like those of wet-nurses, ornatrices and medices, carried out by free or freed women.6 Papyrological evidence demonstrates women’s involvement in trade and financial transactions as well, especially in Egypt, but also in Asia.7 After the Augustan legislation on marriage, freeborn women with three children or freed women with four were released from the tutela,8 and thus allowed to perform transactions without the consent of a male guardian. The recognition of female labour is partly connected with the changing appraisal of remunerated labour during the Hellenistic and Roman period. Whereas Greek and Roman sources authored by representatives of the elites express disdain for banausic occupations,9 epitaphs of members of associations show that it becomes increasingly common to identify individuals by their profession.10 This again shows the contrast between elite ideology and the real life of common people.11 The representation of women’s paid labour in Roman sources is ambivalent, but it also attests their participation in various occupations. issue of female doctors in Plato’s Republic (454D, 455E), from a text-critical perspective: POMEROY, “Plato and the Female Physician”, 496–500. 5 PLEKET, Epigraphica II, no. 12: Antiochis, daughter of Diodotos (Tlos, Lykia, first century CE); no. 20: Pantheia, commemorated by her husband Glykon, also a doctor (Pergamon, 2nd cent.); no. 26: Domnina (Neoclaudiopolis, Phazimontis, Asia Minor, 2nd/3rd cent.), no. 27 (Obrimos and his wife, in Cilicia Trachaea, 2nd/3rd cent.). See also G. HORSLEY, “Doctors”, 16–17. He notes that out of 90 epitaphs for archiatroi listed by Vivian Nutton only one commemorates a woman, a Christian epitaph set up by an archiatros, referring to his wife, Auguste as avrcieia,trhna. 6 See the epigraphic material quoted by GÜNTHER, “Matrona”, 367–370. 7 For Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: ROWLANDSON, Women and Society, 219, 245–247 and no. 163 (pp. 222–224, P.Berl.dem. 3142 and 3144, 199 BCE – the sale of plots of land between two women), no. 166 (pp. 228–230, Sel.Pap. I.27, 107 BCE – sale of land by three women), no. 165 (pp. 226–228, Pap.Lugd. Bat. XIX 2 and 3, 109 BCE – leases of land), no. 171 (p. 235, P.Turner 24, 148–154 CE, woman applying to purchase property), no. 182 (pp. 247–248, SB XIV. 11376, 239 BCE – a woman buying property); loans made by women – no. 183 (pp. 248–250, 221 BCE), no. 184 (Pap.Lugd. Bat. XIX 6, 109 BCE), no. 188 (P.Tebt. II.389, 141 BCE). Examples multiply from the 3rd cent. CE onward, partly due to better preservation. For Asia: G. HORSLEY, “Purple Trade”, New Docs 2 (1982), 25–32 (esp. 28–31). See also LANG, “Neues über Lydia?” 36–40 (papyrological and epigraphic evidence for female purple traders). 8 TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 68; ROWLANDSON, Women and Society, 175–177 (no. 131, excerpts from the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, BGU V, 1210, here p. 176). 9 Pl., Amat. 137B reflects disregard for artists. Banausic occupations are commonly disconsidered: Cic., Off. 1.150; Phld., Oec. 23.1–22 (quoted and discussed by TSOUNA, Ethics, 189– 190); Sen., Ep. 88.21. See also GÜNTHER, “Matrona”, 354–355; TREGGIARI, Terentia, 9, cf. 15–16 on female employment. On upper-class contempt for schoolmasters: HARRIS, Ancient Literacy, 135–136. Yet, the same occupations may be acceptable, when not performed to make a living. 10 VAN NIJF, Civic World, 40. 11 See PLEKET, “Wirtschaft”, 36–37; VITTINGHOFF, “Gesellschaft”, 205–206.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

299

Typical female activities like nursing or woolworking are considered suitable when not remunerated, but rank low when performed to provide a living.12 Tacitus’ criticism of the employment of wet-nurses is doublely ideological. Discrediting nurses is only one of the aspects.13 His chief concern in fact is the moral decay of Rome, epythomised by women’s neglect of their traditional roles. In spite of the ideological disregard for women’s employment and notwithstanding the ideal of a woman merely attending to her household tasks, the epigraphic material shows that women are present in the labour market.14 Socialising is another aspect of public presence. Some authors note that even in Athens, where the ideology of seclusion flourished foremost, some possibilities of informal social presence are attested.15 That Roman women could socialise, participating in banquets,16 entertaining the husband’s guests, attending theatrical performances, receiving calls of clients and friends at home,17 and, in the imperial period, accompanying their husbands to provinces is a commonplace. Some elite women could exert political patronage and were administering property and keeping up financial connections while the husband was abroad or impeded for various reasons. Legal and financial responsibilities are also attested. In the Greek East women, especially when widowed, acted as guardians (epitropoi) of their underage children, watching over their property and defending their 12

Columella deplores the old times when industrious wives performed all female labour within the household instead of entrusting it to slaves (the assertion is an introduction to the tasks of the vilica). Res rustica, 12, praef. 7–10. 13 Tac., Dial. 28–29 (“at nunc natus infans delegatur Graecule alicui ancillae, cui adiungitur unus aut alter ex omnibus servis, plerumque vilissimus nec cuiquam serio ministerio accomodatus”, 29.1), see also GÜNTHER, “Matrona”, 370–371. A similar concern is expressed by [Plut.], De lib. educ. 5, Mor 3C-F, where however Greek nurses rank high. 14 DIXON, “Exemplary Housewife or Luxurious Slut?”, 65–74. 15 Greek women could leave the house to visit neighbours or to perform religious rites. BLOK, “Virtual Voices”, 95–116; D. BURTON, “Public Memorials”, 20–35 (23–24). Reassessing the question of the public that attended theatrical representations in Athens, HENDERSON shows that women probably attended such performances. “Women”, 133–147 (esp. 138–144). He notes the difference between the conventional audience (implied by the androcentric address) and the actual audience, and adduces arguments from ancient authors (e.g. Pl., Gorg. 502D; Leg. 817C, 658D), and several allusions, mostly from Aristophanic plays, which are best explained on the hypothesis that women attended performances. A variety of sources seem to indicate that under certain circumstances respectable Greek women may have attended symposia in the company of men. J. BURTON, “Women’s Commensality”, 143–165. See also LACEY, Family, 6, however far too optimistic. 16 The well-known comparison between Greek and Roman mores in Cornelius Nepos, Praef. 6, cf. TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 423. 17 TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 420–427. Matrons sometimes also had an indirect influence on public affairs. See HEMELRIJK, Matrona Docta, 10 (cf. 223–224, n. 13), 41–46.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

300

Women on the public stage

inheritance rights.18 (Conversely, under Roman law, women could not be guardians of their children.) Through wills women could bequeath property to their children. The first century BCE Laudatio Murdiae, an example of the matter, is nonetheless remarkable for the ideological tone of the commendation. The epitaph praises Murdia’s virtues and her exemplary behaviour in a manner reflecting the clichés about honourable women. The post-mortem celebration of her private virtues earns Murdia a sort of public acknowledgment.19 Yet, the appreciation of her equity and devotion to her family is lessened by the ambivalent statement that reads: praise for all good women is simple and similar, since their native goodness and the trust they have maintained do not require a diversity of words. Sufficient is the fact that they have all done the same good deeds that deserve fine reputation, and since their lives fluctuate with less diversity, by necessity we pay tribute to values they hold in common […]. Still, my dearest mother deserved greater praise than all others, since in modesty, propriety, chastity, obedience, woolworking, industry, and loyalty she was on a equal level with other good women (“modestia probitate pudicitia opsequio lanificio diligentia fide par similisque cetereis probeis feminis fuit”), nor did dangerous times deter her from virtue, work and wisdom.20

The concluding list of virtues, characteristic of an unexceptional female life, is clearly at odds with her ability to administer property. Seneca will articulate a similar praise of his mother, for her generosity in financial matters and for the way she has taken care of her children’s inheritance: you have always had the greatest joy in the blessings of your children, yet you 18 See the honorary inscription to Senbreidase, from Xanthus (Lycia), dedicated by her son, Cleon, and its interpretation in KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 24. For other examples of women as epitropoi: VAN BREMEN, Limits, 228–230. The practice is attested elsewhere as well: P.Yadin 1.20, 1.25, Maoza (Petra), 130 and 131 CE, http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.babatha (29.10.2010). On the legal debate and the social status of Julia Crispina: HANSON, “The Widow Babatha”, 85–103; GRUBBS, Women and Law, 254–255. She is designated as episkopos. 19 Dedicated by her son from her first marriage (CIL VI, 10230 = ILS II2. 8394): DIXON, Roman Mother, 48–49, 63–65, 68. n. 13; HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 113, 297, n. 69; Engl. LEFKOWITZ, FANT, Women in Greece and Rome, 110. The son praises her for having made all her sons equal heirs, also taking care of her daughter, a sign of her maternal love (“maternus caritate liberum aequalitate partium constat”). The commissioner of this laudatio emphasises his own right to the property bequeathed by his mother, given his father’s liberality, but it may be that she did not only give him his own inheritance that was in her administration, but also offered him a share of her own inheritance from her first husband. She even bequeathed pecunia to her second husband. Her attitude has deserved the unanimous recognition of the citizens (“consensu civium laudaretur”). 20 LEFKOWITZ, FANT, Women in Greece and Rome, 110.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

301

have used them not at all; you have always set bounds to our generosity, though you set none to your own; you, though a daughter in your father’s household, actually made presents to your wealthy sons; you managed (administrasti) our inheritances with such care that they might have been your own, with such scrupulousness that they might have been a stranger’s. 21

Murdia and Helvia appear as an ambivalent mixture of a competent manager of financial assets and a model of female modesty and selflessness.22 No doubt, a dedicated mother will serve the interests of her children in the best possible way. What matters here, though, is that in all cases when mothers successfully managed their children’s assets, they acted with a competence and autonomy that was obviously at odds with the ideal of quiet retirement in one’s home. To summarise, whereas ideological sources relegate women to the household and to domestic tasks, epigraphic evidence shows that women of different social conditions were in fact present in the public sphere through labour, socialising and by holding certain legal and financial responsebilities. Even when these responsibilities are attested, the representation of women holding them is ideological. They are depicted by means of conventional virtues, as domestic, inconspicuous and unassertive. 4.2.2 Women in the public sphere in the Greek East. Benefactors and officials Beginning with the Hellenistic period some public, nearly political roles open up for women in the Greek East. The royal women are certainly the most prominent,23 however, they are not of immediate relevance for the PE, given the incomparable height of their status. Therefore I only briefly mention the matter, as it shows the (no doubt exceptional) possibility for women to achieve highly influential positions, notwithstanding a common ideology that demands their exclusion from the public sphere. On the other hand, the representation of royal women shows the contrast between ideology and reality. The phenomenon of female office-holding and euergetism is more significant and will be discussed in more detail. 21

See Sen., Helv. 14.3 (transl. Basore; emphases added). See also Apul., Met. 7.6, on the probably legendary Plotina, described as “rarae fidei atque singularis pudicitiae femina, quae decimo partus stipendio viri familiam fundaverat, spretis atque contemptis urbicae luxuriae deliciis”). (She is not identical with Trajan’s wife, but the character and the choice of name are probably a deliberate allusion to the emperor’s wife; cf. MÜLLERREINEKE, “Rarae fidei”, 619–633). 23 The political influence of hetaerae and concubines will not be addressed here. 22

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

302

Women on the public stage

4.2.2.1 Royal women In Egypt and Asia Minor the role of Hellenistic queens is ambivalent.24 On the one hand, they acquire real political influence. Queens appear (along with their husband) as promulgators of royal edicts or of indulgence decrees.25 They often act independently, at times as sole rulers.26 Sibling marriage, monogamous marriage,27 public recognition for benefactions and the elevation to divine status endow queens with a prominent public profile and influence.28 Their inherited status or acquired position provides them with a degree of political power that may even be perceived as threatening the authority of the king.29 On the other hand, however, they are commonly portrayed as devoted consorts and dedicated mothers, a circumstance showing that their position is subordinated to political aims and serves the royal interests. Their prominence shapes the profile of the king and reinforces his rule, through the image of royal concord and of (dynastic) legitimacy.30 Their ideological representation is thus at variance with their public presence. Historical records, just as the Attalid propaganda described queen Apollonis, wife of Attalus I and queen Stratonice, wife of Eumenes II, as examples of female virtues (semno,thj( swfrosu,nh), piety (euvse,beia) and love (filostorgi,a) toward their husband and children, in order to reaffirm traditional values and strengthen the moral authority of their male relatives.31 Verner is likely correct that a deliberate campaign was initiated 24

ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 117–126. Doc. 209 (50 or 70 BCE; Ptolemy XIV and Cleopatra VII, or Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaena) and 210 (118 BCE, Ptolemy Euergetes II, his sister and former wife, Cleopatra II, and his niece and wife Cleopatra III) in Select Papyri II, 58/59–74/75. See also docs. 272, 273 (petitions addressed to King Ptolemy and Cleopatra II), in the same volume, p. 242/243–248/249. 26 KEARSLEY, “Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor”, 99–103 (discussing especially Dynamis, queen of Bosphorus, whose sole rule was recognised by Augustus after the death of her husband, Asander, and again after her divorce from Polemo I of Pontus; and Pythodoris, wife of the same Polemo of Pontus, and sole ruler of this kingdom after his death); ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 123–124. 27 From the third century onward. 28 ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 118, 121. 29 ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 123. 30 ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 119. 31 ROY, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, 120–121, VERNER, Household, 65–67, discussing Plb., Hist. 22,20 and OGIS 308. Polybius remarks that Apollonis was a woman worth remembering (avxi,a mnh,mhj), in spite of her common origin (dhmo,tij), as a queen who preserved her high station through her swfronikh.n kai. politikh,n semno,thta kai. kalokagaqi,an (Hist. 22,20). Shuckburgh translates “by the virtue and integrity of her conduct in private and public life alike”; Paton has: “exhibiting the gravity and excellence of a woman strict in her life and courteous in her demeanour” (LCL). It is very difficult to decide about the meaning of swfroniko,j (sensible, sober, temperate, chaste?) and politiko,j (befitting civic matters or polite?) in this context. At any rate Polybius goes on emphasising her motherly love and commitment. The decree from Hierapolis (Phrygia) honours Apollonis, distinguished by her virtue, her pious attitude (euvsebw/j) toward the gods, her reverent demeanour (o``si,wj) toward her parents, her exemplary attitude toward her husband 25

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

303

by Apollonis’ sons, advertising her public image as a paragon of domestic virtues, in order to represent her male royal descendants as champions of traditional family values. Apollonis’ image of a submissive and self-effacing wife and dedicated mother is thus at odds with her engagement in public affairs.32 Semno,thj, kalokagaqi,a, swfrosu,nh, euvse,beia and filostorgi,a are here eminent virtues of an elite woman. This is not the case in Asia Minor alone. We find a similar ambivalence in the representation of the Hasmonean queen Salome (Shelamzion) Alexandra.33 After the turmoils that marked the rule of Alexander Jannaeus she managed to pacify Judea, reaching reconciliation with the Pharisees and averting the attack of King Tigranes. Yet, Josephus, while recognising some of her political achievements, her piety (euvse,beia) and astuteness,34 is quick to point to her surrender as the result of the influence of the Pharisees.35 In his Antiquities he is even more negative about her.36 He depicts her with almost manly traits: she shows no signs of female weakness, she is ambitious and has a mind and disposition fit for action. But she is also imperious, desirous to rule (a;rcein) to the point of ignoring what is good and just,37 leaving the state in a terrible condition, out of passion for what does not pertain to a woman [i.e. power]. Even so in the end Josephus has to acknowledge that she kept the peace of the nation.38

4.2.2.2 Benefactors and magistrates Office-holding and euergetism are among the most significant roles providing social visibility to women in the Hellenistic and Roman period. In Western Asia Minor, from the late Hellenistic period onward, wealthy women belonging to the local elites appear as benefactors of their community with an increasing frequency, often on behalf of religious and/or civic offices.39 The magistracies most often held by women include the stephaneand children, in which she implanted a spirit of concord (o``monoi,a). Similar virtues are ascribed to queen Stratonice, wife of Eumenes II, by her son, Attalus III Philometor, in a letter to the people of Pergamon: she is euvsebesta,th, filostorgota,th, a good wife and mother (cf. C.B Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, Chicago, 1934, repr. 1974), 67, in VERNER, 66). 32 VERNER, Household, 67, cf. n. 169 (following C. Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’Epoque hellénistique, Paris, 1970). On the propaganda about queen Apollonis see also VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 224. 33 On her rule: Jos., Bell. 1.107–119; Ant. 13.398–432; on her ambivalent representation in rabbinic sources and the DSS: ÎLƖN, Silencing the Queen, esp. 35–41, 61–72. 34 Bell. 1.108, 111–112. 35 Bell. 1.110–113. 36 Ant. 13.430–432. 37 Ant. 13.431 (ou;te kalou/ ou;te dikai,ou e[neka. ge tou,twn evpestre,feto). He even seems to make her responsible for the loss of the independence of the state (due in fact to her sons’ rivalry). 38 Ant. 13.432. 39 On women’s access to certain offices in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: VAN BREMEN, The Limits of Participation (1996); MACMULLEN, “Woman in Public in the Roman Empire”, 208–218; NOLLÉ, “Frauen”, 229–259; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 198–201; DMITRIEV, City Government, 178–188; TREBILCO, Jewish communities, 113–125. For female euergetism see also

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

304

Women on the public stage

phoria, the gymnasiarchia, the prytany, the agonothesia, the hipparchia and the demiourgia, the position of archis/archeine (the female counterpart of archon) and basilissa, all highly prestigious and in general, extremely burdensome financially.40 Some of these offices are filled in as eponymous magistracies.41 However, women do not hold political offices properlyspeaking; positions involving voting, decision-making, financial power and some other responsibilities, or at least the cases that seemingly suggest the opposite are exceptional or debatable.42 Euergetism and office-holding can hardly be discussed separately. Therefore some examples of prominent female benefactors are mentioned in what follows, with reference to their office when it is applicable. Archippe, daughter of Dikaiosgeneos is eulogized for her generous euergetism in the late second century BCE, by the Aeolian town of Kyme.43 Her benefactions reveal her considerable wealth,44 whereas the honours bestowed on her are similar to those ROGERS, “Constructions”, 215–223; VAN BREMEN, “A Family from Sillyon”, 43–56; EAD., “Women and Wealth”, 223–242; Limits, 108–110, and the discussion of individual cases. 40 QUAß, Honoratiorenschicht, 313 (agonothesia), 321–322 (gymnasiarchia); 419 (occasional membership in the gerousia); VAN BREMEN, Limits, esp. 59–76. Several examples will follow in this chapter. 41 E.g. the stephanephoria in Priene and Miletos, the prytany in Ephesus; the hipparchia in Kyzikos, all also held by women (VAN BREMEN, Limits, 31, 61–63, 65). The eponymous magistracy, the most prestigious office, was the one by which a city dated its official documents and, in some cases, its coins (VAN BREMEN, 59). 42 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 55–56, passim; DMITRIEV, City Government, 182, 291, 317. A few examples to the opposite (VAN BREMEN, 76–80) are apparently debatable. VAN BREMEN questions one of the claimed female grammateis at Tralles (preferring the restoration grammateusas [Pappakonstantinu] to grammateusasa [Sterrett]), and dismisses the other as male (78–79). Her argument that women could hardly have been grammateis because of the increasing importance of the position (79) is disputable and takes for granted what she ought to prove. She equally dismisses the female strategos from Minoa (Amorgos), because she finds the restoration doubtful (though she has no alternative suggestion), and because of the political role of the strategos; and rejects the one from Germa (Phrygia) as male (79–80). The office of dekaprotos will be addressed shortly in connection with Menodora of Sillyon. A female paidonomos appears at Miletos, holding many other offices (archiereia of the Sebastoi and of/for the Ionians, stephanephoros, gymnasiarchos of the neoi, the gerousiastai and the politai, choregos of all choregiai, agonothetes of the Didymeia Commodeia [games held at Didyma in the honour of emperor Commodus], kotarchis (probably a religious office), and teleios leiturgos; p. 77, 94). However, van Bremen connects the paidonomia to the religious context of Didyma, and argues that the title implies merely the provision and training of paides for choruses. 43 PLEKET, Epigraphica II, no. 3 = IK Kyme 13 (PH 268283); J.M. COOK, BLACKMAN, “Archaeology in Western Asia Minor 1965–70”, 37;ȱ VAN BREMEN, Limits, 13–18; EAD., “Women and Wealth”, 235; DMITRIEV, City Government, 54–55; POMEROY, Goddesses, 125. 44 They include the building of the council hall, its later reparation and several distributions of food and wine. The promises of benefactions comprise the donation of two of her estates to the town after her death, to support the building of a temple to Homonoia, also incorporating workshops, and a grant of 1000 staters to the officials of the town to finance biannual sacrifices.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

305

awarded to prestigious male benefactors.45 A husband is not mentioned and her benefactions are carried out independently, from her own resources.46 Phile, daughter of Apollonios, wife of Thessalos, the first female stephanephoros in Priene (and implicitly the eponymous magistrate of the city), is commemorated in the early first century BCE for having built the water supply of the city from her own resources.47 In about the same period, an Epie, holder of several religious offices is known for financing several building projects in Thasos and is praised for her willingness to take on repeatedly various onerous priesthoods and liturgies.48 Ephesus, at least according to the preserved inscriptions, stands out because of its number of female prytanes and together with Stratonikeia, its female gymnasiarchoi.49 Women prytanes are known in Ephesus from the first half of the first century CE.50 The prytany is very commonly associated with the priesthood of Artemis,51 therefore some Ephesian benefactors will be mentioned a little later. Female prytany is not an exclusively Ephesian phenomenon. 52 In the first century CE Flavia Ammion, daughter 45 The honours include statues to be erected in public places, a public funeral and burial by the other benefactors. 46 VAN BREMEN assumes that she was widowed, and the three last decrees refer to a late period of her life (Limits, 17–18), but this is highly speculative. Just as speculative, as she herself admits, are the suppositions about her reasons, and the apparent association of some of her benefactions with the death of her brother, Olympios (16–17). 47 IPriene 208 = PH 253027; PLEKET, Epigrahica II, no. 5; QUAß, Honoratiorenschicht, 214; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 31–34 (noting the religious-ritual character of the stephanephoria); DMITRIEV, City Government, 54–55 (the two latter list a number of other female stephanephoroi). 48 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 25–26 (cf. SEG 18,343). She was several times neokoros of Aphrodite, priestess of Zeus Euboulos, and neokoros of Athena. She restored temples, paid for the erection of statues, and made the promise to build the monumental gateway (propylon) of the Artemision. 49 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 43. WITETSCHEK quotes a statistic of FRIESEN according to which between 1–250 CE 23% of the prytanes were women (Ephesische Enthüllungen, 46). 50 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 87, n. 14; and Appendix 2, pp. 317–321, nos. 4, 12, 14, 22, 32. Curtia Postuma appears to be the first known female prytanis in the first half of the first century. A Claudia Trophime appears in inscriptions from the end of the first century (IEph 508, 1012). The prytanis was one of the chief magistrates in Asian cities. By the imperial period the office seems to have largely lost its political function, and became a mainly religious magistracy. In Ephesus s/he was in charge of the religious ceremonies related to the cult of Hestia and the imperial cult, held in the Prytaneion. KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 25; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 87; TREBILCO, Jewish Communities, 119–120; WITETSCHEK, Enthüllungen, 46. The religious duties of the prytanis (lighting of the fire on altars, offering incenses, providing sacrificial animals from his/her own resources, rendering the parts of the sacrificial animals to which the hierophant is entitled) are listed in an inscription from Ephesus, see CONNOLLY, “Standing on Sacred Ground”, 106–107. The prytany is counted among the most prestigious and costly magistracies in imperial Ephesus, along with the agonothesia and the gymnasiarchia. On the variety of a prytanis’ duties in different Asian cities (at least in the Hellenistic period): DMITRIEV, City Government, 26–27, for Miletus: 72–74 (members of the city council, with legislative responsibilities), for Priene: 82–85; for Ephesus in the imperial period: 280–283. 51 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 86–87. 52 DMITRIEV, City Government, 159, 179, 256. He lists a number of other women prytanes: Flavia Ammion in Phocaea (IGR IV, 1325 = PLEKET, Epigraphica II, 11); Cocceia Popiliane, eponymous prytanis in Klaros (SEG 37, 973 = PH 295054). The agonothesia was held by Julia Juliana in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

306

Women on the public stage

of Moschos, is prytanis in Phocaea, twice stephanephoros and agonothetes; she also holds an important religious position as archiereia of the temple of Ephesus.53 Cosconia Myrton holds the eponymous stephanephoria in Smyrna three times between 83 and 118 CE, along with the prytany at Kolophon and Klaros (after 115), but not much is known of her euergetism.54 Junia Theodora, a Roman citizen of Corinth in the mid-first century CE, possibly a native of Lycia, is one of the most often discussed influential women thought to be relevant for the world of the New Testament. She is honoured in five surviving inscriptions put up by Lycian bodies,55 for having bestowed numerous benefactions on Lycian citizens (officials included) and for extending hospitality to them.56 Junia’s activity is described in terms of patronage (prostasi,a).57 The guests received in her house are not only private persons, but also official envoys.58 The inscriptions by the Lycian koinǀn record her good connections with officials (h`gou,menoi, l. 5; h`gemo,naj, l. 52), commonly taken for high-ranking Roman authorities.59 These details attest her status and connections. Remarkably, Junia acts on her own, with no assistance from a male guardian. A husband is never mentioned.60 Claudia Metrodora, another Greek woman with Roman citizenship, holding several magistracies in Chios, is honoured in several decrees roughly in the same period.61 Her Thyatira and by Julia Menogenis, the latter also stephanephoros and prytanis. Other cases are known in Pergamon, Thyatira, and probably also Herakleia Salbake (DMITRIEV, 179–180). 53 PLEKET, Epigraphica II, 11 (CIG 3415, IGR IV, 1325): avrcie,reia vAsi,aj naou/ tou/ evn E v fesw|. 54 I Smyrna 731, 775; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 64, 84–86; DMITRIEV, City Government, 159, 179, 256. 55 Two are by the federation of the Lycians and three by the cities of Myra, Patara and Telmessos. VÉNENCIE et al., “Inscriptions”, 496–508; PLEKET, Epigraphica II, no. 8; KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 24–27; EAD., “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 191–198, text and translation at 204–209; KLAUCK, “Junia Theodora und die Gemeinde von Korinth”, 42–57. 56 She “dedicated her life to earning the gratitude of all Lycinians, and has bestowed numerous benefits on large numbers of our citizens; and, revealing the generosity of her nature, she doesn’t cease, because of her goodwill, both from offering herself as host to every Lycinian and receiving (them) in her house” (polla. kai. plei,stoij tw/n h`mete,rwn poleitw/n evpV euvergesi,an pare,schtai kai. to. e`auth/j megaloprepe.j th/j yuch/j evndeiknume,nh evx euvnoi,aj ouv dialei,pei xe,nhn te evauth.n pa/sin Luki,oij parecome,nh kai. th/| oivki,a| decome,nh, decree no. 3, Patara, ll. 26–28, VÉNENCIE et al., “Inscriptions”, 499, 501; Engl. KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 205–206). 57 L. 77 in the Telmessos-decree: prostasi,an [evn]d[eiknume,nh]. KEARSLEY (“Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 190, 202) and KLAUCK (“Junia Theodora”, 55–56) parallel her position and patronage with that of Phoebe in Rom 16,1–2. 58 [pr]e,sbesin toi/j av[po]stellom[e,n]oij u`po te tou/ e;qnouj. According to the second decree by the Lycian federation, ll. 50–53. 59 KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 194 (the Roman governor and officials in Corinth, possibly also governors or procurators travelling to Lycia); KLAUCK, “Junia Theodora”, 48 (politicians and magistrates). He describes her as a power broker mediating the access to the patronage-system (pp. 54–55). On her high status: VAN BREMEN, Limits, 165, n. 78 (she mentions Junia Theodora only in footnotes; also p. 164, n. 73; 198, n. 11). 60 KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 196. 61 Three decrees from Chios and one by the Ionian federation. She was twice stephanephoros, four times a gymnasiarchos, as well agonothetes on several occasions. See KEARSLEY, “Women in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

307

office-holding is associated with several acts of beneficence toward her city.62 She is also the basileia of the Ionian league (probably a religious, not a political position, but certainly a prestigious one),63 and as priestess for life of the divine empress Aphrodite Livia.64 In Ephesus, during the first century CE several priestesses of Artemis are known to have sponsored various projects. Tryphosa invested money in several religious dedications.65 Vipsania Olympias, priestess of Artemis and prytanis, supported the renovation of a basilika with 5000 denarii.66 Helvidia Paula dedicated a building from her own resources.67 One of the most munificent female benefactors in the second century CE is Menodora, daughter of Megakles. She comes from a wealthy family of magistrates in Sillyon (Pamphylia) and is celebrated in four extant inscriptions for benefactions and payments (equalling a dazzling amount of money) on behalf of her and her children’s magistracies.68 She holds several offices (among others that of dekaprǀtos) and priesthoods. The office of dekaprǀtos is significant, as it involves financial Public Life in the Roman East”, 198–201, text and translation at 209–212. Her name is also preserved in an inscription from a building in Ephesus. See also VAN BREMEN, Limits, 71–72, 74. (She holds it “legitimate to speculate that a complimentary inscription for her husband [or brother, or father] would have referred to the same titles”, but even so she admits that she appears to have held the stephanephoria in her own name; n. 136). 62 These include the direction and sponsoring of imperial games (associated to her repeated agonothesia), a banquet for citizens and visitors, the distribution of oil to the city, and the financing of a bath complex. 63 KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 200. 64 On the divinisation of Livia and her assimilation to various goddesses, KEARSLEY, “Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor”, 106–107. 65 She dedicated to Artemis, to the emperors, and to the Ephesian demos five statues with altars, “from her own funds [...] according to the promise of her father.” IEph 1139, during, or shortly after the reign of Nero, cf. ROGERS, “Constructions”, 219, VAN BREMEN, Limits, 238. The promise was a payment for her priesthood. Van Bremen emphasises the obligation of descendants to carry out the benefactions promised by their parents, on several other examples, to show how female euergetism was integrated in that of the family. However, it is Tryphosa who carries out the promise. Moreover, her suggestion that these examples demonstrate the lack of male heirs (p. 237) is questionable. Whereas in some cases this may have been true, it was far from being the only reason for female descendants carrying out the promises of the father. In Tryphaena’s case, the promise was clearly connected to her priesthood. 66 ROGERS, “Constructions”, 219, cf. IEph 987. 67 IEph 492 (around 89/90 CE); cf. probably 492a, too; ROGERS, “Constructions”, 219. 68 Inter alia she is said to have established a fund for feeding the children of the town, to have donated gifts in wheat for the council and the assembly, as well as for citizens and non-citizens, and to have had a temple built to Tyche in memory of her deceased son. For a detailed discussion: VAN BREMEN, “A Family from Sillyon”, 43–56, EAD., Limits, 108–112, noting that the total amount Menodora had spent was possibly over one million denarii. Cf. EAD., “Women and Wealth”, 223, 230, 237, where she speaks of donation in money of 520000 denarii. When her donation is mentioned with that of her husband, hers exceeds that of the husband. Van Bremen compares the size of her benefactions to that of Opramoas of Rhodiapolis (2nd cent. CE), the immensely rich and generous Lycian benefactor (on Opramoas: DANKER, Benefactor, 104–151). See also HANDS, Charities, 73, 192; NOLLÉ, “Frauen”, 245–247.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

308

Women on the public stage

responsibilities and this is the only known case when it is held by a woman.69 Atalanta, daughter of Piaterabis, a widow, is another munificent benefactor of second-century Termessos (Pisidia).70 Plancia Magna is one of the most prominent women of second-century Roman Perge and one of the most generous and renowned benefactors. She is priestess of Artemis Pergeia, of Cybele and of the imperial cult.71 She is known to have erected the southern gates of the city and the corresponding walls, with a number of statues to members of the imperial family and to various divinities. Plancia Magna has also held the demiurgy, the eponymous magistracy of the city twice (as priestess of Artemis and as priestess of the imperial cult) and prytany. Her husband, Julius Cornutus Tertullus, a senator, came from one of the most prominent local families. Yet, he is not mentioned in the dedications and does not share the imperial high priesthood with his wife.72 A long honorary inscription at Selge, early in the third century, preserves the memory of Publia Plancia Aurelia Magniana Motoxaris, priestess of Tyche, daughter of P. Plancius Magnianus Xenon, munificent benefactor of the city.73 She seems to have been introduced into her office by her father, holding the demiourgia.74 Her

69

See also TREBILCO, Jewish Communities, 115–117. TAM III.4 = PH 280110; also WALTZING, Corporations, III, 27–28; HANDS, Charities, 191– 192; VAN NIJF, Civic World, 113; VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 227, EAD., Limits, 189– 190, 260. She is said to have emulated her ancestors’ acts of filotimi,a toward the polis, in expenditure, gifts and sacred offerings, promising a generous supply of corn at time of shortage. She is rewarded with a bronze image, to be exposed in a public space (the Attalus-stoa), a golden crown and a statue. Her noble descent is suggested by the reference to her euvgenei,a, and by her lineage mentioning her ancestors four generations back. 71 Inscriptions on the statue bases, dedicated to her: IK Perge 122,35–37 (PH 276608–276610), 11.152,106 (PH 276687), IK Perge 86 (PH 313831), 117–125 (PH 313860–313868), or on statue bases of members of her family, of the imperial family and to gods, bearing her name: IvPerge 11.119.28a, 28b,29–30 (PH 276596; 276597; 276598; 276599), 121,31–35 (PH 276600–276607); IK Perge 88–99 (PH 313834–313844), from the first two decades of the 2nd century. See VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 235; EAD., Limits, 104–108; TALIAFERRO BOATWRIGHT, “Plancia Magna”, 249–272; NOLLÉ, “Frauen”, 247–252. In some she appears as “daughter of the city”. See also RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 200. Her father, Marcus Plancius Varus, acquired the senatorial rank under Nero, and held several Roman offices, becoming proconsul of Pontus and Bithynia probably under Vespasian (NOLLÉ,“Frauen”, 248–249; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 104–105). 72 The reconstruction of their (age at) marriage, and of the reasons for which he is not mentioned in the dedications of Plancia (VAN BREMEN, Limits, 105–107) are highly speculative. The fact remains that she is the dedicator and holds the offices, including the imperial high priesthood, in her own right. 73 I Selge 17 = PH 282635; Selge (Pisidia), late Severan period or shortly after. For a detailed discussion: NOLLÉ, “Frauen”, 236–244; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 100–103. On the importance of the building projects sponsored by the father, P. Plancius Magnianus Xenon, a descendant of Plancia Magna, and his daughter, Motoxaris, see also BARRESI, Province dell’Asia Minore, 539–540. 74 NOLLÉ considers that her introduction to this highest municipal office is all the more noteworthy as she has a brother (P. Plancius Magnianus Aelianus Arrius Perikles, later on a benefactor of the city), and thinks that he might have been younger, or not yet born at the time (“Frauen”, 238). 70

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

309

parents held several offices.75 Both she and her brother Perikles have held the high priesthood of the imperial cult.76 Motoxaris appears to surpass in importance both her husband, a benefactor of lesser profile and her brother.77 She will engage in the (re)building of the upper agora, including the agoranomion, a temple for Tyche, an Odeon, a commercial complex and other buildings. For this reason she is described as founder (kti,stria) and as mother of the city; she also receives the title of trofo,j, probably in view of her distributions of food. The phenomenon of female euergetism extends beyond Asia Minor and Greece. Aba, daughter of Hekataios, wife of Euxenides, from second century Histria (Moesia), a priestess of the Mother of the Gods, is praised for her plentiful benefactions.78 The recollection not only attests the remarkable wealth of the benefactress, but witnesses the importance of her family,79 and offers an indirect proof for her influence in the city, including the officials who received her gifts. Inscriptions of more modest scope attest to women patrons of individuals or of associations.80

It is not easy to elucidate the factors that contributed to the social prominence of women in Asia Minor, in contrast to their exclusion from all public functions (except the religious ones), in classical Athens or in contemporary Rome. The phenomenon is frequently explained by economic conditions. The depletion of male finances under the continuous pressure 75 P. Plancius Magnianus Xenon was archierothytes, demiourgos, on several occasions agonothetes (together with his wife), and a benefactor himself. His wife, Aurelia Xenoniane Maidate, has been hierophantria, priestess of Tyche for life and agonothetes (VAN BREMEN, Limits, 101). 76 NOLLÉ assumes that Motoxaris held the high priesthood of the imperial cult with her husband, C. Valerius Eugenes (“Frauen”, 239), but this is nowhere mentioned. Her husband appears in three of the inscriptions, as philosophos, [ktistes] or [pater] poleǀs (reconstructed) and tropheus (VAN BREMEN, Limits, 103, n. 80). She visibly tries to explain away Motoxaris’ prominence over her father and brother (102–103). 77 NOLLÉ, “Frauen”, 239, 241. Her husband will receive a statue in the Odeon rebuilt by Motoxaris only after his death, while his wife is commemorated there already during her lifetime. 78 ISM I 57 (between 150–200 CE), cf. SEG 18, 293 and SEG 24, 1112, PLEKET, Epigraphica, II, no. 21, = PH 172723. Text, translation and discussion in VAN NIJF, Civic World, 149–150, 156– 183, 251–252. She is said to have emulated the generosity of her ancestors, and even surpassed their enterprises. Among her benefactions the dedication notes public meals at her inauguration, distribution of money to councillors, members of the gerousia, physicians and teachers, supply of wine to various factions, professional associations and religious groups of the city, repeated provisions on festival occasions, and a constant receptivity to all solicitations. 79 Her family is said to have stood out through the multitude of prestigious offices and the amount of liturgies performed. 80 The dedication of Gaius Fulvius Eutyches honours his patroness, wife or daughter of Gaius Fulvius Pius; 2nd/3rd century, Rome (G. HORSLEY, “A freedman’s dedication”, 60–61). An inscription attesting the erection of a statue dedicated by Aurelius Molos Diskos, a freedman of Artemis, wife of Meidianos Platonianos, refers to her as mother of the council, perpetual gymnasiarch, founder (ktistria) of the gymnasium herself together with her husband, and his patroness: TAM III 58 (PH 280163), compare 57 (PH 280162), VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 228–229. For patronesses of voluntary associations: WALTZING, Corporations, I, 427– 430, 449; HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses and ‘mothers’”, 115–162.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

310

Women on the public stage

for benefactions would have made women’s own contribution necessary, to allow elite families to cope with their growing financial obligations.81 Women’s resources, public role and prestige would have been merely the means by which the preservation and promotion of the status of (male members of) elite families was achieved.82 Whereas some authors have emphasised the changes in the legal status of women and their growing economic power from the Hellenistic period onward, Riet van Bremen questions this evolutionary interpretation,83 and highlights the ways in which families, especially of moderate wealth, developed strategies of survival in which capital tended to concentrate in the hands of male descendants and only exceptionally in those of women.84 On her hypothesis women could acquire significant wealth mostly in the absence of male heirs, or when they were widowed,85 and these factors limited women’s (disposal of) wealth more than often admitted. Moreover, apparently women’s wealth in itself was not a sufficient explanation for female euergetism. Women’s increasing involvement in liturgies and liturgical offices had to do with the “domestication” of the public sphere, the construal of the polis as an enlarged oikos and with the fact that the system of euergetism was conceived as an extension of family relations.86 This in its turn had to do with the attempt of elite (oligarchic) circles to justify their rule, through a paternalistic ideology of familial relations between the leading class and the rest of the citizens.87 This blurring of the distinction between the private and public sphere in the exercise of euergetism may have explained why women were entitled to act as benefactors, often in connection with the exertion of priesthoods or liturgical offices, while magistracies entailing political activities proper (decision-making and voting), as well as travelling, remained closed for women. A similar position is defended by Dmitriev, who remarks that women in Hellenistic and 81 NOLLÉ, “Frau”, 254–255; VEYNE, Pain, 285, 750, n. 261; ECK, “Ämter und Verwaltungstrukturen”, 29. 82 NOLLÉ, “Frau”, 258–259. 83 VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 225–226, 230–232, 238; EAD., Limits, 202–236 (against POMEROY, Goddesses, 126; EAD., “Techikai”, 51, and others). She argues that, against opposite views, in the Greek East legal guardianship continued to exist; moreover, it was not the only way through which male relatives controlled women’s disposal of their wealth. 84 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 204, 237–244, 250–261. 85 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 259–261. 86 VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 235–237; ROGERS, “Constructions”, 218–219; VEYNE, Pain, 245, 274. The language of fictive kinship used to describe the relationship between benefactors, polis or other recipients of benefactions confirms the view that euergetism was conceived according to the pattern of family relations. 87 On the role of euergetism in legitimising the rule of the local elites and in the preservation of social distance see already VEYNE, Pain, 311–312.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

311

Roman Asia had access only to offices involving significant costs that could be held even by persons without citizenship and political rights, but were excluded from the most important administrative offices. Even when they actually held these offices and not only the honours associated with the title, they had little influence on the administration of the city.88 “[S]ocially prominent women were still regarded first of all as members of their families.”89 These explanations illuminate many aspects of the question, yet they are not sufficient on their own.90 Neither the domestication of the public sphere and the strategies for survival and advancement developed by elite families (van Bremen), nor the tenure of religious offices can explain the emergence of female office-holding and euergetism.91 The changing legal frame, allowing an increasing financial autonomy of women must have played a role. It is striking that compared to the classical period women do own property, do carry out financial transactions and do pay for benefactions and liturgies.92 Further, one should not assume that female euergetism and women’s appointment to offices was motivated solely by the interests of their male kins. While acknowledging the interests of the family as a whole, one should also consider the contribution of elite women in its own right,93 and one should not presume that women were only instruments of male 88 City Government, 182 (“Even if women did in fact hold these offices and not merely pay for their authority, such posts had little effect on city administration.”), 291, 317. On payment for acquiring offices, also VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 224. 89 DMITRIEV, City Government, 183, yet, emphasising the familial dimension of benefactions for men and women alike. 90 Other hypotheses include a change in mentality in the new settlements in Hellenistic Asia Minor (POMEROY, Goddesses, 126), and the impact of the image of Roman (imperial) women (MACMULLEN, “Woman”, 216–218; NOLLÉ, “Frau”, 255–256; KEARSLEY, “Women and Public Life”, 100, 103–113, 117–118, focusing on the public image of Livia, and its influence in Asia Minor). 91 FRIESEN, “High Priestesses of Asia”, 146–147 (against van Bremen’s thesis that high priestesses were always consorts of high priests, and that the title was merely emblematic for the ideology of the married couple). 92 VAN BREMEN is right that we have very little information about a “Greek law” in the Hellenistic period, or during the Roman rule in those Greek poleis where Roman law did not apply (Limits, 200–202). She may be right about the endurance of guardianship in one or another form. Yet, one cannot dismiss the admission in Gai., Inst. I, 193 (Limits, 206) that outside Rome tutela did not have the same bearing, nor should one overlook the influence of the Augustan legislation providing for emancipation (the ius trium liberorum, briefly mentioned by VAN BREMEN, 226– 227), on women’s legal and economic independence; see also POMEROY’s review of van Bremen (Limits), 491. Further, based on the probable existence of other forms of male control over women’s wealth, one cannot claim that women could not really decide about wealth when a number of texts clearly say so. To argue that women could do so only in unfortunate circumstances, in the absence of male heirs (259), is overly pessimistic. 93 Rightly, ROGERS, “Constructions”, 219–223.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

312

Women on the public stage

relatives in their desire to achieve wealth and prestige. There is no reason to deny that women could and wanted to be active contributors to the welfare of their family and of their city. On the other hand, men were subject to similar expectations, as members of a family and continuators of its traditions, but this did not diminish the prestige they acquired and the impact their benefactions had on their community.94 Further, one may not discard a priori women’s office-holding as unimportant, just because it did not include political offices. Men commonly filled in prestigious, though costly magistracies (much the same as those listed in the introduction of this chapter for women) without direct political implications and particular roles in decision-making; yet, these men would not have regarded their (liturgical) offices as insignificant.95 These magistracies clearly signalled the status and wealth of their holders and had a social impact. Since women admittedly held such offices on their own, not only as an honorary title or on behalf of a male kin,96 it can be inferred with good reason that such women have acquired comparable prestige and informal influence due to the same factors, even when this did not equal the authority of men occupying the highest political magistracies. It is a commonplace that acquiring and holding public offices was extremely costly, especially as it was inevitably associated with euergetism. Therefore one has to ask: why were elite women willing to pay for the authority connected to offices (to use Dmitriev’s words97), if they had indeed nothing to gain from it? That they thereby contributed to the prestige of their families is certain, but so did men. Yet, no one would claim that men accepted financially burdensome offices merely for family reasons, without any personal gain. To claim such disinterested willingness to spend their fortune for women, without any personal motivation or reward, would be

94 As WAGNER-HASEL notes in her review of van Bremen (Limits), “[s]törend wirkt [...] das wiederholte Insistieren auf der Begrenztheit weiblichen Handelns, auf der geringen Eigenständigkeit der Frauen. Selbstbestimmung und Emanzipation von familiären Zwängen sind gewiß keine Kriterien, nach denen politisches Verhalten in der Antike beurteilt werden kann. Nur gilt diese Feststellung nicht allein für Frauen, sondern auch, wenngleich in anderer Weise, für Männer” (p. 28). 95 VAN BREMEN rightly remarks that men acceded in addition to political offices which made up the largest part of their career, whereas women held a limited number of (liturgical) magistracies that mostly lasted for one year (Limits, 85). The point, however, is that they did hold these offices that were also regarded as significant by men. 96 A matter admitted by VAN BREMEN, Limits, 66; DMITRIEV, City Government, 182, although both emphasise female officials’ limited influence. See also TREBILCO, Jewish communities, 116, 118–125. 97 City Government, 182.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

313

overly idealistic.98 A specific motivation could have been related precisely to their female condition.99 Magistracies and euergetism clearly provided them with no insignificant social visibility and at least with informal influence.100 Moreover, there is no reason to deny female officials’ and benefactors’ aspiration to philotimia, or their sense of pride and responsibility for their city, values that obviously motivated male benefactors.101 Female officials and benefactors are indeed often mentioned in relation with members of their family.102 However, this is not evidence for the insignificance of their contribution. Male benefactors are equally integrated in their family, being honoured as descendants of prestigious families and, in some cases, they are even defined as sons or husbands of prominent women.103 In sum, in Asia Minor from the Hellenistic period onward and even more so during the Early Empire, women are increasingly present on the public stage as benefactors and holders of certain magistracies, in virtue of their (and their families) status and wealth. On the other hand, there is, no doubt, a striking contradiction in the image of outstanding women holding several prestigious magistracies, depicted as modest, dedicated wives and mothers, respectful of traditional values. 4.2.2.3 The representation of elite women The language of the honorary decrees is largely stereotyped and so are the values and virtues assigned to elite women. Archippe and Claudia Metrodora are praised for their kalokavgaqi,a, a term more frequently used for men, highlighting here the status and the moral worth of these women. On 98 Even VAN BREMEN, though constantly questioning the individual significance of female office holding, admits that women were lead by “the same psychological motivation” as men (Limits, 54). 99 As KEARSLEY remarks, “[i]t was only by virtue of their wealth and their family connections that some women stepped beyond the conventions of social anonymity and domestic fidelity” (“Women in Public Life”, 27). 100 TREBILCO, Jewish communities, 119, 121. Euergetism (not only individual patronage) implied certain reciprocity: the honours granted to benefactors were a recognition and a return on benefactions (and of course an incentive for further benefactions); VEYNE, Pain, 269–270, 272–273. On the principles governing the patron-client relationship (social asymmetry, reciprocity, honour and gratitude given to the patron): SALLER, Personal Patronage, 1, 8; VAN NIJF, Civic World, 76; NEYREY, “God, Benefactor and Patron”, 467–468, 483; on the similarities between individual and collective patronage: VAN NIJF, 77, on symbolic exchange: 116–120. 101 On the motivations and rewards of benefactors, VEYNE, Pain, 236–238, 242–246, 268–276, 300. 102 VAN BREMEN repeatedly emphasises women’s belonging to their families, regarding the criterion of independence as anachronistic (Limits, 45, 82–103). 103 IEph 980.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

314

Women on the public stage

the other hand, from the beginning of the Roman period inscriptions honouring female benefactors and officials increasingly emphasise conventional female virtues and depict these women as dedicated members of their family.104 They are presented as daughters, wives and mothers of elite citizens, manifesting affection toward their relatives. This representation is part of the exemplary image of the elite, constructed to legitimise the political power held by the leading families.105 Female officials and benefactors are even integrated in the fictitious family of the polis, being defined as daughters or mothers of the city, or of its various political bodies.106 This agenda will shape the representation of male magistrates and benefactors as well. Yet, the process will lead to the stress on gender-specific qualities and virtues (swfrosu,nh, kosmio,thj, avreth,, a`gnei,a, filandri,a).107 This emphasis on traditional virtues produces a tension between the public prominence of these women and their advertised domestic virtues. However, this representation cannot be used to minimise the social importance of their role. On the one hand, we often find a similar insistence on male officials’ and benefactors’ affection for the members of their family and household.108 104 On the changes in the way female benefactors are described in the Roman period, as part of the domestication of the public sphere, in contrast to the Hellenistic epoch, when the image of female benefactors incorporated the same values as that of male citizens (zeal, pronoia, eunoia, megalopsychia, philodoxia): VAN BREMEN, Limits, 165–170. 105 As VAN BREMEN notes, the concern of the governing elites with legitimacy leads to “an ideological emphasis on kinship, marriage and procreation”, on ideological constructs like social distance, “moral excellence, exemplary generosity and the transmission of those values to one’s offspring” (Limits, 163). 106 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 164, 168–169. 107 Junia Theodora, an influential, well-connected person, is depicted in an ambivalent manner, not only as a woman held in greatest honour (evn pleisth| teimh/|), displaying zeal in her enterprise, but also as living modestly (swfro,noj). Many inscriptions explicitly extol traditional female virtues. The eulogy of Atalanta lists the conventional qualities of elite women: she was adorned by noble birth and self-restraint, excelling in all female virtues (euvgenei,a kai. swfrosu,nh kekosmhme,nh kai. pa/san gunaikei,an avreth.n avpodeiknume,nh). Motoxaris is esteemed for the decorum (kosmio,thj) of her mores, her fairness (evpeikei,a) and her magnanimity (megalofrosu,nh). (Some of these women were discussed earlier.) An honorary inscription from Heraklea Salbake praises an Ammia, daughter of Charmides, wife of G. Aburnius Eutychianos, prytanis and stephanephoros, noting her noble descent and listing a number of typical feminine virtues: she is chaste (a`gnh,), modest (sw,fron), adorned with all virtues and by love for her husband (filandri,a). PLEKET, Epigraphica II, no. 24 = MAMA VI, 119 (2nd cent. CE), Engl. VAN BREMEN, Limits, 166–167. 108 Agreophon of Perdeikia, gymnasiarch, stephanophoros and agonothete (IKaunos 4 = PH 259542), was discussed earlier (ĺ2.4). He excels in theȱ filagaqi,aȱ of life and morals; he has revered the elder (presbu,teroi) as fathers, acted with filostorgi,aȱand filokali,a, he was di,kaioj, a`gno,j,ȱ zealous in swfrosu,nh,ȱ piousȱ (euvsebh,j)ȱ and lovingȱ (filo,storgoj)ȱ toward members of his household (pro.j tou.j oivkei,ouj), evpieikh,j kai. fila,nqrwpoj toward household slaves. Moschion of Priene behaved piously toward the gods (euvsebw/j), irreproachably (o`si,wj) toward his parents and all those living with him (IPriene 108 = McCabe, Priene 66 = PH 252946), discussed by VEYNE, Paine, 237–238). The inscriptions repeatedly emphasise the role of his brother in euergetism.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

315

On the other hand, this image of female officials and benefactors not only highlights their worth, but it is also meant to make their public presence palatable. 4.2.3 The semi-public presence and ideological representation of Roman women Roman women were entirely barred from civic offices. Consequently their influence on public matters was exercised via patronage and through holding religious offices. Patronage, often associated with euergetism, will be addressed here, while religious roles will be discussed in a following chapter. Patronage, as well as indirect political influence is commonly exercised by imperial and senatorial women, enjoying social prestige due to the rank of their father, husband or son.109 Political, municipal patronage, as well as that of collegia or of individuals, is quite frequently associated with elite women. Roman women can act as public benefactors, providing funds for building projects, or as patronesses of arts, literature and philosophy. Imperial women obviously benefit from their special status and material condition. 4.2.3.1 Imperial women The veiled political influence of imperial women is rather well attested, in spite of their outright exclusion from political functions and decisionmaking.110 Yet, the matter is only briefly addressed, because of the incomparable height of these women’s position. Livia, Augustus’ wife, appears as a prominent figure already during her husband’s rule. Suetonius tells of her attempts to influence decisions by both Augustus and Tiberius and of her brave intervention in a crisis.111 Agrippina the Younger will restore Seneca from exile through her intervention by Claudius.112 Sabina, the wife of Hadrian and Domitia Lucilla, the mother of Marcus Aurelius are known for having promoted the political career of men.113 109 Already Liv. 34.7.8. Explicitly Ulp., Dig. 50.17.2, quoted by DMITRIEV, City Government, 186–187. 110 SALLER, Personal Patronage, 64–66. See also FISCHLER, “Imperial Cult”, 165–183. 111 Suet., Aug. 40, cf. Tib. 50 (her intervention at a fire near the temple of Vesta, to Tiberius’ displeasure). 112 SALLER, Personal Patronage, 57. 113 Sabina supported Cl. P. Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus, apparently one of the first Ephesians adlected to the Senate. The inscription of a statue erected to her in Ephesus describes her as benefactress of both him and his father. KALINOWSKI, “The Vedii Antonini”, 118–119.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

316

Women on the public stage

The patronage of arts and philosophy is also significant. Octavia, the sister of Augustus is the patronesses or patron-broker of the architect Vitruvius; she also dedicates a library to the memory of her son, Marcellus and is possibly the benefactor of the Stoic Athenodorus of Tarsus.114 Plotina, Trajan’s widow and Hadrian’s adoptive mother, is known for her support to the Epicurean school in Athens.115 Philostratus acknowledges having belonged to the circle of Julia Domna, who encouraged him to write his Life of Apollonius.116 Examples could be multiplied, but a detailed discussion of imperial women would be beyond the purpose of this research. 4.2.3.2 Non-imperial women The case of non-imperial patronesses is more relevant. City patronage, though commonly a prerogative of men, was exerted in some cases by women and officially recognised as such by civic bodies.117 Beyond euergetism, patrons of cities were expected to promote the interests of the community with their authority.118 No wonder that city patronesses more often belonged to the highest, senatorial (even consular) families, and less frequently to the equestrian and decurial families.119 The very belonging to certain elite families made one eligible for this role.120 This does not mean that women’s nomination as city patrons was merely honorific. Although they were excluded from offices, their wealth, rank, social prestige and the Domitia Lucilla endorsed the career of Didius Julianus, who eventually became governor of Gallia Belgica (SALLER, Personal Patronage, 42, 65). 114 HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 104–113, 290–291, nn. 28–31, 294–297, nn. 49–67; also pp. 113–116 on the possible patronage by Agrippina Minor (wife of Claudius, mother of Nero), Poppea Sabina (Nero’s second wife), and Domitia Longina (Domitianus’ wife). 115 HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 116–117, 299–301, nn. 83–94. 116 Philostr., Vit. Apoll. 1.3. 117 HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 209–245 (for her criteria for identifying patronesses: 211– 213). She discusses 19 patronesses of cities, honoured in 18 inscriptions from the Western part of the Empire. 118 HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 210. See the tabula patronatus of Nummia Varia, of senatorial rank, priestess of Venus Felix, co-opted as patroness of Peltuinum Vestinum (Italy, 242); cf. CIL IX, 3429, in HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 222–225. She is expected to take the community and each of its members under the protection of her family (domus), to promote the public interest, and to intervene, whenever needed, through the authority pertaining to her dignity, providing protection and defence. What is striking, is the use of auctoritas with respect to a woman, and the expectation of protection and defence, a contribution that one would more easily associate with men. 119 Vibia Aurelia Sabina, daughter of Marcus Aurelius, patroness of Thibilis and of Calama (Numidia), between 211–212. HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 214–215, 219, cf. ILAlg 2. 661; ILAlg 1.241 = CIL VIII, 5328. 120 On the connections between the families of patronesses: HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 216–217.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

317

network of social and family relations permitted them to effectively represent the interests of the community that appointed them as patrons,121 by influencing the decisions of men.122 Some elite women, like the Vestals could have some indirect bearing on politics.123 Other prominent women could also promote the interests or defend the case of men by using their influence on their male relatives.124 Patronage of voluntary associations was another role not infrequently assumed by women.125 Patronesses belonged to the local elites and in general were not members of the collegia they supported. It was especially the habit of professional associations, in particular the most important ones that also attracted wealthy citizens, to co-opt female patrons.126 Of the fourteen patronesses from Italy and the Latin-speaking provinces, identified by Hemelrijk, only three were certainly co-opted by religious associations.127 Patrons were expected to meet the financial needs of a community, providing for the costs of banquets, or donating buildings, shrines and burial plots.128 Patrons also mediated the access of the members to the broader network of patronage and defended the interest of their clients at law and before the administrative apparatus.129 In some cases patrons could even further the economic interests of the association.130 (This latter task was less likely to be performed by women.) Remarkably, it was not the collegia with (predominantly) female membership that appointed women as patrons. The reasons for such a decision may have been various. Elite, well-to-do women

121

HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 218–220, 225, noting that women’s definition via their male relatives emphasised their social prestige, since they could not be identified through their offices. 122 SPÄTH, “Frauenmacht”, 196–202, focusing on informal familial communication as a means to influence political decisions taken by men and arguing for a more flexible relation between private and public sphere. 123 On Vestals’ involvement in politics and their endorsing of candidates in elections: RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 186. Campia Severina promoted the procuratorial career of Q. Veturius Callistratus, and Aemilius Pardalas’ appointment to the equestrian militia. SALLER, Personal Patronage, 64 (ILS 4928, 4929). 124 Cicero was probably sustained during his exile by Junia, mother of consul C. Cl. Marcellus (TREGGIARI, Terentia, 66). Other cases are found in the chapter on wealth, authority and gender (ĺ4.3.3). 125 On patronesses of associations in the Greek East, ĺ1.3.2; for Italy and the Western provinces see the detailed discussion by HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’” (2008). 126 HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses”, 120–121, 124 (the fabri, the centonnarii and the nautae). 127 HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses”, 123–124 (the cultores Iovis Latii, the collegium hastoforum Ostiensium, the cultores collegii Larium). 128 For a detailed discussion of the duties of patrons: VAN NIJF, Civic World, 48, 82–111. 129 VAN NIJF, Civic World, 77, 95–100 (“brokers”). 130 VAN NIJF, Civic World, 84–95.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

318

Women on the public stage

could and did provide for the material needs of the collegia131 and used their connections to the benefit of the association. The same sort of informal power held by elite women in view of their connections, wealth and social prestige, addressed earlier with reference to city patronesses, allowed them to perform the tasks commonly expected from any patron. Elite women could also wield cultural patronage. Polla Argentaria, widow of M. Annaeus Lucanus is considered a patroness of Statius and of Martial.132 Martial enjoyed the beneficence of other wealthy women as well.133 Architectural patronage exerted by wealthy matrons was also significant, both in Rome and at the peripheries.134 4.2.3.3 The ambivalent representation of influential Roman women Just as in the case of women in the Greek East, the representation of elite Roman women in literary sources is ideological. Influential characters are depicted as modest, unassuming, embodying conventional virtues, cherishing family values, remaining in the shadow of their male kins. As little as one may know about the historical Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, it is clear that her image in Plutarch and Valerius Maximus is idealised and made to fit patterns of traditional female dedication.135 An educated matron with probably some political influence is represented as a modest woman that regards her children to be her only adornment (ĺ3.6.2.4). The public presence of Livia is apparently accepted and promoted by Augustus himself.136 Yet, the statues erected in her honour and her literary 131 HEMELRIJK notes that honorary inscriptions for patronesses list their benefactions in only a few cases, a fact that raises the question about their actual involvement in euergetism (“Patronesses”, 125–127). Yet, the case is not dissimilar from that of male patrons. The practice could be due to a deliberate obscuring of the causal relationship between benefaction and honours bestowed, presenting the relationship between patron and community as a disinterested one (VAN NIJF, Civic World, 119; followed by HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses”, 126). 132 NISBET, “Felicitas at Surrentum”, 3, 5; HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 129–138, 309, nn. 141– 149. Whether Polla Argentaria should be identified with Polla, wife of Pollius (Silv. 2,2.9–10), as suggested by Nisbet, and more recently by NAUTA (Poetry for Patrons, 224–225) is a matter of debate. Statius combines in her description conventional female qualities (beauty, simplicity, grace and chastity) with attributes that provide her with social visibility (parentage and education); 2.7.62–63, 83–86. 133 Marcella and Mummia Nigrina (HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 138–142; NAUTA, Poetry for Patrons, 70). 134 WOODHULL, “Matronly Patrons”, 75–91. 135 Plut., C. Gracch. 4; Val. Max. 4.4; HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 65–67, 97–98, 101–102; DIXON, Cornelia, 5, 7, 21–22, 50–54, 56–59. 136 Suet., Tib. 50. See KEARSLEY, “Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor”, 103–107. Tacitus is far more negative: BARRETT, “Tacitus, Livia and the Evil Stepmother”, 171–175; FELDNER, “Women’s Exclusion”, http://rewi.hu-berlin.de/FHI/zitat/0209feldner.htm.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

319

depiction as devoted to typical female activities create the image of a traditional, virtuous matrona.137 When she later gains political influence, she receives quite negative publicity. Tiberius is said to have been deeply displeased by her meddling in public affairs.138 Agrippina Maior, granddaughter of Livia and wife of Germanicus, though generally regarded as a reputable woman, is depicted by Tacitus in a highly ambivalent manner: as avid of power, moved by manly ambition and assuming military attributions; yet at the same time she is characterised by castitas and amor mariti, by fecunditas and pudicitia.139 The influential Plotina, wife of Trajan, known as a benefactor, is described by Pliny as sanctissima femina and praised for her single-minded devotion to her husband and for her modesty.140 She appears as the personification of traditional virtues. She is entirely dedicated to the emperor, uninterested in his office, claiming nothing from his fortuna. She distinguishes herself by modest attire, an unassuming public appearance, and her utmost glory is her obedience to her husband.141 Both Plotina and Trajan’s sister, Ulpia Marciana are paradigms of devotion and obedience toward Trajan who do not challenge his imperial authority.142 The conventional view about marital and familial concord, about female modesty, dedication and domesticity returns in the visual representations of Plotina, Marciana and Matidia, the niece of Trajan.143 The image of an exemplary family where female members are devoted and subservient to the emperor is meant to confirm the stability of the imperial rule.144 Once more, the contrast between imperial women’s real influence and their ideological typifying is remarkable. A similar phenomenon may be 137

Cf. Suet., Aug. 73: Augustus wears simple clothes made by his sister, wife and daughters. Suet., Tib. 50. Tiberius is unwilling to allow the bestowal of public honours upon her because of her authority; also Tib. 51; Tac., Ann. 1.14. Suetonius and Tacitus admit Tiberius’ jealousy. On his enmity with Agrippina, his daughter-in-law, apparently motivated by her political ambitions: Tib. 53. 139 HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 284, n. 147, referring to Ann. 6.25.2 (“impatiens, dominandi avida, virilibus curis feminarum vitia exuerat”); 1.69.1 (“femina ingens animi munia ducis… induit”, defending the bridge over the Rhine); 1.33 (her castitas and amor mariti); 1.41.2 (“insigni fecunditate, praeclara pudicitia”). 140 Ep. 9,28.1; compare her eulogy in Paneg. 83. See ROCHE, “Public Image”, 41–60; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 170–171; STANDHARTINGER, “Eusebeia”, 67–68. 141 “Eadem quam modica cultu! quam parca comitatu! quam civilis incessu! Mariti hoc opus, qui ita imbuit, ita instituit: nam uxori sufficit obsequii gloria” (Paneg. 83.6–8). Even her low-key virtues are entirely assigned to Trajan. The same happens with Ulpia Marciana, his sister (“in illa tua simplicitas, tua veritas, tuus candor agnoscitur”, 84.1). ROCHE, “Public Image”, 48–49. 142 Pan. 84.5,8; ROCHE, “Public Image”, 49–50. 143 ROCHE, “Public Image”, 55–56 (numismatic representations of Plotina as Vesta, goddess of the hearth, or associated with an ara Pudicitiae; Matidia as Pietas, guarding two children). 144 ROCHE, “Public Image”, 51, 60. 138

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

320

Women on the public stage

seen at a lower level, in the case of patronesses. Honorary inscriptions depict these elite women as respectable members of the family, not infrequently displaying traditional female virtues.145 Thus even influential women need to be represented as unassuming and submissive, because the female gender is incompatible with womanhood. 4.2.4 Public presence in the cultic sphere and gender One of the major issues regulated in the PE is that of participation in or exclusion from religious offices, an issue clearly determined by the understanding of gender roles. That is why the subsequent discussion will pay attention to the participation in religious life in Greco-Roman culture, focusing on the public dimension, on office-holding and on the issue of gender-inclusiveness. Some other aspects relevant for the public religious roles in the PE are also touched upon, such as the social status of those in office and the economic implications of public religious activities. The discussion will advance from minor aspects, namely dedications that provide dedicators with certain visibility in the religious sphere, to more important manifestations, like holding priesthoods. The aim of this discussion is to show that Greco-Roman mentality and practice, although removing women from the political sphere, assigned them important roles in the public religious life, alongside men or on their own. The sphere of religion was the most important domain where women could hold public roles.146 In a classical passage Strabo contends that women had a decisive role in establishing religion and stresses their devotion and their influence on men, whom they attract to cultic practice.147 145 HEMELRIJK, “City Patronesses”, 228–230. Even when, apparently, Roman epigraphic habit appealed less frequently to traditional domestic virtues, and more often to civic qualities, compared to Greek practice (FORBIS, “Women’s Public Image”, 493–512; HEMELRIJK, 229–230). 146 As STAPLES notes: “It is only in the domain defined and demarcated by ritual that we find ‘ordinary’ women acting formally, collectively and publicly sometimes alongside men, sometimes apart. Moreover, women’s public religious activity, far from being perceived as threatening, was sanctioned by the male establishment, even deemed vital for the well-being of the polity” (Good Goddesses, 3). She refers to the conditions of the Roman Republic, yet the same was already true for classical Greece: GOULD, “Law”, 50–51; DILLON, Girls and Women, 128–129 (“Classical Athens in particular was chauvinistic in terms of perceptions about gender, and women priesthoods gave adult women a public role not allowed in other avenues of life”); FOLEY, “Female Intruder”, 3, 8. This continued to be true in the imperial period. 147 Strabo rejects the claim that those Thracians who chose celibacy were more pious (qeosebei/j). “[F]or all agree in regarding the women as the chief founders of religion (th/j deisidaimoni,aj avrchgou,j), and it is the women who induce the men to the more attentive worship of the gods, to festivals, and to supplications (pro.j ta.j evpi. ple,on qerapei,aj tw/n qew/n kai. e`orta.j

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

321

While clearly an overstatement, the contention indicates the degree to which women were associated with religion. In classical Athens, despite seclusion, disability at law, subordination to male guardianship and exclusion from the political sphere, women were accepted, moreover, needed actors in the (public) religious life. In Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, participation in religious offices was a common practice for elite women, frequently associated with euergetism and holding of civic offices. Even in Rome, where they were excluded from political life and even from minor magistracies, women were entitled to carry out important functions in the religious sphere, as priestesses of various cults. (Some of them, like the Vestals, acquired thereby indirect political influence.) In marked contrast to the practice in contemporary society, the PE exclude women from public religious roles. 4.2.4.1 Dedications as signs of presence in the public religious sphere Dedications made by men and women are public manifestations of piety. They do not necessarily involve the tenure of religious offices, although cult officials may also offer dedications, or members of their family may thereby commemorate their holding of a sacred office. Even as expressions of personal devotion, dedications have a public dimension because their object is exposed in public sacred spaces (as is the case of statues and other items) and/or included in records of a temple, which are sometimes made public.148 The public aspect is even more marked when shrines are dedicated. Beyond their religious significance, dedications provide information about gender relations, about the familial and social status of the dedicators. Offerings by women, either on their own or with their husband, are revealing for the social, legal and religious aspects of women’s status. Dedications advertise their social rank and wealth and may also have political dimensions.149 In Greece, where during the classical period most dedications appear to have been made by men,150 women are increasingly present as dedicators in kai. potniasmou,j), and it is a rare thing for a man who lives by himself to be found addicted to these things.” (Geogr. 7.3.4, transl. Jones, modified). He continues with two negative examples from Menander, to prove women’s excessive religiosity and the costs of such piety. 148 DILLON, Girls and Women, 9–12, 14–15 (statues exposed in sanctuaries), 17–23 (records of objects, particularly clothing). 149 E.g. the dedications made on the Acropolis by Roxane, Alexander’s wife, and by Olympias, his mother, at Delphi and on the Acropolis (DILLON, Girls and Women, 18–19). 150 DILLON analyses the list of M.L. Lazzarini (Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica, 1976), finding 80 dedications made by women, out of a total of 884 (Girls and Women, 9, cf. 301, n. 1). Even joint dedications are more often made by men: KEESLING, “Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments”, 398, 401–405.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

322

Women on the public stage

their own right, offer dedications from their own resources and may be named in inscriptions at the start of the Hellenistic epoch. Dedications provide women with certain social visibility.151 Even when hidden from human society, women are visible before the gods they worship.152 A look at inscriptions shows the increase of dedications made by women alone in Roman Asia Minor. The practice is common for elite women holding religious offices or magistracies.153 The situation is comparable in Rome,154 yet, there dedications appear to be liable to state control.155 151 This is true even in the classical period, when a female dedicator is defined in relation with a male kin (DILLON, Girls and Women, 16–18). Even the naming of dedicators in religious inscriptions from this time is remarkable, given the cultural norms prohibiting the public naming of respectable women. SCHAPS argued that (at least in orators) this tendency simply reflects the assumption that respectable women could not have been known to the magistrates: women are named only when associated with one’s enemy, of low status (slaves), when disrespectable (hetaerae), or deceased (“The Woman Least Mentioned”, 323–330); also GOULD, “Law”, 45. BREMMER notes Plutarch’s failure to recover the name of the mothers of eminent Greeks due to this custom (“Plutarch and the Naming of Greek Women”, 425–426). The hiddenness of the name was actually symbolic for the underlying conspicuousness of the person and symptomatic for social seclusion. As Gould has shown, the periphrases that related her to a male kin indicate that in classical Athens a woman “has no personality and exists only as extension of her male kyrios” (p. 45). 152 For dedications of statues of divinities or dedicatory inscriptions offered by women, priestesses included, in Hellenistic Greece: CONNELLY, Priestess, 139–140. In Ephesian inscriptions from the Roman period male dedicators often mention female co-dedicators, commonly relatives. See e.g. IEph 959 (a neopoios mentions his sunbi,oj and his children); 961 (neopoios Pompeios, with his daughter Auge and his wife Ulpia); 962 (neopoios T. Flavius Alexander Aelianus, with his daughter Vedia); 967 (neopoios Q. Cas […] Metrodorus with his daughter or wife Ionike); 969 (neopoios Ulpius […], with his children Ulpius Felix and Ulpia Julia). The practice suggests that even when women were not financial contributors, they were regarded as participants in dedications. On other occasions thanksgiving is jointly offered by male and female officeholders (e.g. the thanksgiving to Hestia by hestiouchos Aurelius Euporistos and the kalathephoros Aurelia Teimothea [IEph 1070]; to Hestia Boulaia, Demeter, Kore, and all the gods, by the hestiouchos Libonianos and the kalathephoros Claudia [IEph 1070A]). 153 An Ephesian dedication to Hestia by prytanis Claudia Trophime (IEph 1062, ca. 92/93 CE), one to Artemis by a Cominia Junia (IEph 1266, 2nd cent. CE). See also OSTER, “Ephesus”, 1678, 1690, n. 228). The 1st cent. CE Ephesian dedications and religious foundations by priestesses of Artemis, Tryphosa and Vipsania Olympias have already been mentioned (ĺ4.2.2; ROGERS, “Constructions”, 219, cf. IEph 1139). Several inscriptions from Aphrodisias (Hadrianic Baths, mid-second cent. CE) recall dedications made by priestesses: Attalis, priestess of Arete (IAph 2007 5.7); high priestess Gaia Tatia Chrestina, daughter of the city (IAph 2007 5.8); Claudia Seleukeia (IAph 2007 5.209), high priestess Claudia Apphia Chaeremonis (IAph 2007 5.211); Julia Paula, high priestess and anthephoros (IAph 2007 5.211). The thanksgiving of prytanis Aurelia Juliane in Ephesus (IEph 1066) appears to extol the standing of the family at least as much as the virtues of the daughter (she is an offspring and relative of grammateis, prytaneis and asiarchs). 154 The dedication of the temple to Fortuna Muliebris, after the Volscian retreat, is attested only by literary sources (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8.39.1–56.4, Liv. 2, 40.1–13, Plut., Cor. 33.1–37.3). See SCHULTZ, Religious Activity, 37–44, 166, n. 59. The story is suggestive rather for the symbolic association of (elite) women with the salvation of Rome and religion. It may also reflect the recognition of women’s religious euergetism. The decision of the Senate to have the temple built at public expense expresses the fear of the potential influence of wealthy women. Other aetiologi-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

323

The economic aspect of dedications is not without interest. The very act of offering statues (some of notable dimensions), expensive ritual objects or articles of clothing and jewellery, moreover, of shrines, reflects the donors’ wealth.156 Beyond the costs of production, dedications sometimes implied the payment of a fee, when a public space was required from the city for erecting a statue.157 In the Hellenistic and in the imperial period women not only made dedications from their resources,158 but they also contributed to the restoration or erection of shrines.159 The financial aspect is relevant for the increasing economic power and social presence of women. 4.2.4.2 Women as cult officials in the Greek East In the Greek East women actively participated in the religious life of the polis. In certain rituals women had the leading role already in the classical period.160 Thus, as noted earlier, women’s ideological confinement to the household was contradicted by their actual presence in the public sphere in religious contexts. A matter of greater interest, however, is that women are known as priestesses of various cults of both female and male deities, including major cults like that of Athena Polias or Athena Nike in Athens,161 of cal accounts of temples founded or dedicated by women are known (to Carmenta or to Juno Lucina on the Esquiline). Attested dedications by women include large numbers of statues decorated with jewellery in the sanctuary of Minerva at Lanuvium, the adornment, equipping and reparations of the temple of Bona Dea at Ostia by Octavia Maior, daughter of Marcus Octavius, wife of Gamala, the erection and equipping of the temple of Hercules in Rome by Publicia, daughter of Lucius, wife of Gnaeus Cornelius. SCHULTZ, 57–61. 155 As suggested by the case of the Vestal Licinia (123 BCE), whose dedication (an altar and a shrine to Bona Dea) was not deemed sacred (Cic., Dom. 53.136, cf. ORLIN, Temples, 167). The praetor consulted the Senate and referred the case to the collegium of the pontiffs, who decided that the dedication was not made with popular approval. On the legal restrictions: ORLIN, 164–172. 156 DILLON, Girls and Women, 9–12 (the more than life-size Artemis statue of Delos, dedicated by Nikandre of Naxos on Delos, as early as the 7th cent. BCE; other statues offered by women), 15, 21–22 (other items reflecting the dedicators’ wealth), 23–25 for shrines; HARRIS-CLINE, “Women and Sacred Property”. 157 SOSIN, “Unwelcome Dedications”, 130–139. 158 In Hellenistic Asia roughly half of the 160 dedicatory inscriptions naming women mention no male co-dedicator (CONNELLY, Priestess, 277). 159 Menodora, one of the most generous female benefactors (ĺ4.2), erected a temple to Tyche. VAN BREMEN, “A Family from Sillyon”, 46, 51, 54. 160 E.g. those related to the Arrhephoria, Skira, Thesmophoria, Lenaia or the Adonia. Certain rituals expressed the interconnection between women’s domestic function (the e;rga gunaikw/n) and sexuality, marriage and procreation; on a symbolic level these rites were related to the very existence of the community (GOULD, “Law”, 50–51; POMEROY, Spartan Women, 118, 120). The rites of mourning were also specifically female roles (BLOK, “Virtual Voices, 95–116; LLEWELLYN-JONES, Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 192–193). 161 GOULD, “Law”, 51; DILLON, Girls and Women, 75–76; COHEN, “Women in Public”, 41–42.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

324

Women on the public stage

Apollo in Delphi, of Artemis in Ephesus. In Asia, during the late Hellenistic and the imperial period, elite women quite often held both religious and civic offices. In fact, the distinction between civic and religious offices is somewhat arbitrary, given the eminent civic importance of many priesthoods.162 Female priesthoods are sometimes thought to be less prestigious than male ones.163 The evidence should be weighed carefully. In certain major cults women did participate in the priesthood. The cult of Athena Polias was obviously a major cult in Athens, just as the Artemis-priesthood in Ephesus. At Delphi, the Pythia held an important position.164 The lower price of certain female priesthoods does not necessarily reflect the importance assigned to a cult, but rather the competition for a cult at a certain moment,165 or the more limited financial resources of women. Even so, the price of some female priesthoods was higher than that of male ones, probably due to a larger number of candidates.166 Offices were purchased in Asia Minor and in the Islands, but not in continental Greece, where, at least for certain cults, priestesses needed to be descendants of prestigious families.167 The manner of acquiring priesthoods is even more complex. The epigraphic material shows that very often priesthoods in Asia Minor, especially during the Roman period, were filled by members of important local families over several generations and entire lineages of cult officials could be traced. In Asia Minor in some cases the sale of priesthoods co-existed with their purchase and/or holding by members of certain families and with hereditary priesthoods properly speaking, or with priesthoods purchased for life.168 A number of priesthoods were inherited in Asia Minor,169 and not necessarily along the male line.170 While hereditary priesthood was not the rule in Asia, a number of cults existed where familial succession in the office was possible.171 At any rate, both the purchase 162

Limits, 44–45. DILLON, Girls and Women, 76. 164 Even when many accounts are historically debatable, and although sceptics minimise her role. See further in this chapter the discussion on the attributions of priestesses. 165 As DILLON himself notes (Girls and Women, 76). 166 The mystery cult of the Corybantes at Erythrae, where the price for female priesthood was about thrice that of the male one, probably because female candidates were more numerous (DIGNAS, Economy of the Sacred, 257–258, referring to IErythrai II, 201, a63, a65, a72). 167 The genos of the Eteoboutadai for Athena Polias, that of the Salaminioi for Athena Skiras; DILLON, Girls and Women, 73, 75, 76 (noting that for Greece inherited priesthood is clearly attested only in Athens). On the purchase of priesthoods in Asia: DIGNAS, Economy of the Sacred, 250–270. The practice is not attested before the 4th cent. BCE, and evidence for it diminishes after the 1st cent. CE (DIGNAS, 265–269). At Heraclea (Ionia) the transition from perpetual, purchased priesthood, to an elected one-year priesthood occurred in the 1st cent. BCE. 168 DIGNAS, Economy of the Sacred, 191; DMITRIEV, City Government, 50–51, 58, 163. 169 G. HORSLEY, “Mysteries”, 119–150. 170 A 1st cent. CE stele attests Artemis’ succession to her father, Trokondas, in the priesthood of Artemis Ephesia. G. HORSLEY, “Mysteries”, 121 (Burdur Museum, unspecified provenance; possibly Cremna). The inscription also shows the expansion of the cult outside the metropole. 171 G. HORSLEY notes a woman’s succession in the Artemis high priesthood previously held by her father and her grandfather (Termessos, TAM III, 1.17, shortly after 212 CE), the priesthood held by the family of Theophron at Hypaipa (IEph 3825), the priesthood of Asclepius at Pergamon 163

VAN BREMEN,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

325

of offices and the inherited priesthood shows that candidates for priesthood belonged to the better-off, if not outrightly to the elite.

At Ephesus, the Artemis cult was by far the most important,172 and this granted its priesthood a special prestige.173 The Artemis-priesthood was commonly held by women from the local elite.174 Numerous honorary inscriptions from the first to the third century record priestesses of Artemis and high priestesses of Asia as sacred officials and benefactors.175 Sometimes they hold several other religious and civic positions as well. The language of the inscriptions is largely standardised, yet, these testimonies allow a glimpse into the social and cultural background of these priestesses. A Claudia Procla receives an inscription for her worthy service of the goddess.176 Claudia Crateia Veriane, prytanis, gymnasiarch of all gymnasia, priestess and kosmeteira of Artemis, is praised for having fulfilled her sacred role in a worthy and dignified manner.177 She comes from one of the most eminent families of Pergamon.178 Her belonging to one family over 22 successions, or the priesthood of Zeus and Dione in Pisidia, held by descendants of a family for at least five generations (TAM III, 1.376, 377). For these and other examples, including a record in Pausanias: “Mysteries”, 124. 172 For the importance of the Artemis-cult see e.g. the decree of the proconsul G. Popilius Carus Pedo, around 162–164 CE; OSTER, “Holy days”, 74–82. On the Artemis-cult: OSTER, “Ephesus”, 1699–1726; DIGNAS, Economy of the Sacred, esp. 141–156, 170–177, 189–204; KEARSLEY, “The Mysteries of Artemis at Ephesus”, 196–202; EAD., “Ephesus: Neokoros of Artemis”, 203–206; TREBILCO, Early Christians, 19–20; 25–30; WITETSCHEK, Enthüllungen, 68– 86. On the expansion of the cult of Artemis Ephesia beyond the city, G. HORSLEY, “Mysteries”, esp. 135–150. 173 On the connection of ancient Ephesian cults, including that of Artemis, with the imperial cult, as a mark of loyalty to Rome: DMITRIEV, City Government, 266–269, 313–315. 174 On sacerdotal positions and honorary titles related to the Artemis-cult: OSTER, “Ephesus”, 1722; DIGNAS, Economy of the Sacred, 189–195, 200; BREMMER, “Priestly Personnel”, 5–6. The role of the Megabyzoi as chief-priests is limited to the classical period, and the function disappears in the 1st cent. BCE. For that reason it may not be regarded as the supreme (male) priesthood that supervised the cult and its priestesses. LIDONNICI, “The Ephesian Megabyzos”, 201–214; BREMMER, “Priestly Personnel”, 5–6. 175 The number of inscriptions significantly increases from the second century, but this may coincide with the fact that many more inscriptions are preserved from the second and third century. 176 114/116 CE, Ephesus: JÖAI 53 (1981–1982), 46, no. 160 = PH 248991. 177 IEph 980 = PH 248989 (180/192 CE; semnw/j, avxiw/j). 178 IEph 989, WHITE, “Costs of Nobility”, 354. He reconstructs the social background of the family (331–337, 369: the family tree of Julius Fronto and his daughter Julia Polla, down to Claudia Crateia Veriane); compare RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 199; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 72, n. 128. See also the reconstructions in SETTIPANI, Addenda, 26–27, 55–56. The ancestor of this lineage, Julia Polla, sister of Aulus Julius Quadratus, one of the most important personalities of Pergamon, was priestess of the goddess Rome, gymnasiarch and prytanis of Pergamon in the time of Trajan and Hadrian, as well as prytanis at Ephesus. She is also known from a Pergamon inscription, dedicated by her daughter, Julia Tyche (IGRR IV, 1687, ca. 121–128). The latter, a prytanis and priestess for life of Demeter and Kore, is the mother of C. Julius Nabo and C. Julius Fronto, both adlected to the Senate, either late under Trajan or in the early years of Hadrian. WHITE, 354–356,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

326

Women on the public stage

parentage is described in a notable manner. Her father, Claudius Metrobius Verianus is not defined by a title, but as son of a father of the same name (himself an archiereus) and of the archiereia Claudia Crateia. Her mother, Ulpia Democrateia, is a kosmeteira, whose ascendence is described four generations back along the female line; the women in her lineage hold the priesthood in association with the prytany and, in two cases, the office of archiereia.179 Claudia Caninia Severa is honoured as priestess and kosmeteira of Artemis, as well as prytanis and theoros at the Ephesian Olympic games.180 Claudia comes from a consular family.181 She is praised as the author of many great deeds for her homeland. Paula Aratiane is honoured as priestess of Artemis and theoros at the (Ephesian) Olympic games.182 Ulpia Euodia Moudiane, priestess of Artemis also comes from of a highly esteemed family of cult officials, praised for having performed the mysteries.183 An Aurelia, priestess of Artemis, is said to have fulfilled her sacred role with piety and decorum (i`eroteu,sasan euvsebw/j kai. kosmi,wj) and to have had an active role in renewing and restoring the mysteries of the goddess in accordance with the ancient custom.184ȱ This is one of the most concrete references to the actual involvement of a priestess in her service.ȱ She again comes from the local elite.185 Clearly, such inscriptions extol the prestige of the family at least as much as that of the honorand. Claudia, daughter of Tib. Claudius and of Mindia Menandra, herself a priestess of Artemis and probably kosmeteira, is honoured for her holy ministry to the goddess.186 Some women are archiereiai of the imperial cult.187 In the first century CE Flavia Ammion is archiereia of the temple of Ephesus; she is also prytanis, stephanephoros 364; on the origin, Roman ascension, connections, intermarriages, offices and benefactions of the Quadrati: pp. 346–354. White suspects, due to the omission of Julia’s husband, that at this time she might have been widowed, and thinks that her sons’ adlection to the senate was meant to honour both the family and Julia’s services to the imperial cult in Pergamon (p. 354, n. 94). Whether Julia Polla remarried with Fl. Apellas (Knibbe; IEph 980), or a granddaughter of hers with the same name married him (White), is difficult to tell. At any rate, the marriage explains the move of Julia Polla’s descendents to the Ephesian sphere of influence. 179 Julia Damiana Polla, priestess, kosmeteira and prytanis, Flavia Polla, priestess and kosmeteira, Julia Polla, priestess, kosmeteira, archiereia and prytanis, and Mindia Potentilla, archiereia and kosmeteira. The inscription concludes with “recounting her ancestry of priestesses and kosmeteirai”. 180 IEph 892 (evk progo,nwn u`patikh,n, […] polloi/j kai. mega,loij e;rgoij kosmou/san th.n patri,da); also 635c, 639, 648, 956 (ca. 240’s CE). See also RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 199. 181 Her father, Tib. Cl. Severus is prw,toj u`pateu,santoj E v fesi,wn; her mother, Caninia Gargonilla, is evk progo,nwn u`patikh/j. 182 IEph 894. She is the wife of G. Iulius Antonius Tertullinus. 183 ge,noj e;cousan a;nwqen i`ereiw/n kai. kosmhteirw/n; IEph 989 = PH 249133; OSTER, “Ephesus”, 1711. 184 IEph 3059 = PH248846 (probably early 3rd cent. CE); also OSTER, “Ephesus”, 1711; R.A. KEARSLEY, “The Mysteries of Artemis at Ephesus”, NewDocs 6, 201 (noting on the margin of this inscription that in the second century cultic practices associated with the mysteries of Artemis had been neglected, and they needed to be revived, by means of financial donations as well). 185 Her father, M. Aur. Hierocleus Apolinarius is strategos, agoranomos and boularchos. 186 IEph 992B, imperial period (i`erateu,s[asan th/j]ȱqeo[u/ i`eroprepw/j]). 187 The archiereus held the high priesthood of the imperial cult, i.e. a top religious office, in one of the major cities of the province. It is debated whether archiereus and asiarch denote the same

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

327

and agonothete.188 At Aphrodisias, in the first century CE, Apphia, daughter of Theodoros Meliton, is high priestess for life of the emperors and priestess of Artemis.189 Juliane, in Magnesia on the Meander, wife of the high priest of Asia Alkiphron, is high priestess of Asia, priestess of Aphrodite, priestess for life of Agrippina the Elder, stephanephoros and gymnasiarch.190 Julia Severa, daughter of Gaius, in Aemonia, is high priestess and agonothete of the entire house of the divine Augustus.191 Vedia Marcia, daughter of Publius is mentioned as prytanis, priestess and high priestess of Asia (i`erh/j kai. av[rcierei,]aj th/j A v si,aj).192 In an honorary inscription from Aphrodisias a certain Androneikos commemorates Julia Paula, archiereia and anthephoros.193 Another archiereia of Asia, Claudia Ammion, is referred to as the wife of the high priest P. Gavius Capito and as a benefactor.194 She receives the honorary inscription and her benefaction is mentioned before that of her husband. Flavia Papiana is described as avrcie,reia th/j VAsi,aj and avrciere,wn quga,thr.195 Coming from a family of high priests, Flavia Papiana was married to M. Cl. Publius Vedius Antoninus office, or refer to two different (administrative and cultic) roles. See ENGELMANN, “Asiarchs”, 173– 175 (arguing for identity); FRIESEN, “Asiarchs”, 275–290 (assuming the difference, yet a minority position); BURRELL, Neokoroi, 21, 40–41, 65, 67, 346. For further archiereiai, outside Ephesus, and for lykiarchissai: VAN BREMEN, Limits, 118–119, n. 17. 188 PLEKET, Epigraphica II, 11 = IGRR IV.1325 (avrcie,reia vAsi,aj naou/ tou/ evn vEfe,sw|; also priestess of Massalia. Her husband, Flavius Hermocrates, is mentioned without reference to his offices. For that reason TREBILCO considers that her offices were not dependent on those of her husband (Jewish Communities, 119, 121). Conversely, VAN BREMEN (Limits, 126, 135) argues that her husband is Tib. Fl. Varus Calvisianus Hermocrates, archiereus of Asia and holder of several other offices (mentioned by HALFMANN, Senatoren [1979], no. 138b, cf. ILS 8864, also holding several military titles). While Halfmann, p. 202, regards the identity of the two very probable, van Bremen takes it for granted. The identification is not so certain. Another inscription from Phocea (CIG 3414b; IGRR IV 1324, PH 252869) mentions a Flavius Hermocrates, philosopher, stephanephoros, while the one in ENGELMANN, ZPE 42 (1981) 208 = PH 252870 refers to Fl(avius) Hermocrates, prytanis and stephanephoros. JONES distinguishes between the philosopher (Fl. Hermocrates) and the man of action (T. Fl. V. Calvisianus Hermocrates), and also regards the latter the husband of Flavia Ammion (“Epigraphica IV–V”, 128). He mentions a further inscription from the Asklepeion in Pergamon, to L. Fl. Hermocrates, philosopher, high priest of the temples of Asia in Pergamon, whom he considers to be the father of the philosopher mentioned above, and emphasises the hereditary character of the name of “Flavius Hermocrates” (p. 129). CAMPANILE had assumed the same marital relation and regarded L. Fl. Hermocrates their descendant (“I sommi sacerdoti”, 242–245). All in all, it is difficult to know whether Flavia Ammion held the high priesthood with her husband or on her own. 189 IAph2007 12.609 = PH 257116. 190 IMagnMai 158 = PH 260678, cf. MAMA VI, 107a, 174, no. 67. 9–10 (mid-first cent. CE), see KEARSLEY, “Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor”, 110–111; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 84; DMITRIEV, City Government, 179–180. Kearsley is probably right that prw,th tw/n gunaikw/nȱ is an honorific epithet, rather than a chronological indice (the first high priestess of Asia, as argued by FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros, 85–89). 191 TAM 5, 963, in DMITRIEV, City Government, 180. 192 IEph 1017 (93/94–104 CE); KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 25–26 (probably priestess of Artemis). 193 PH 257159 (cf. T. Reinach, “Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias”, REG 19 [1906] 136–137, no. 69). 194 IEph 681. 195 IEph 729. On her holding the high priesthood see also KALINOWSKI, “The Vedii Antonini”, 117, 137–138.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

328

Women on the public stage

Phaedrus Sabinianus (Vedius Antonius III), apparently the first Ephesian to accede to the senatorial rank. He and his wife are known for important building projects.196 Some have suspected that these women did not actually hold the office, being merely wives of high priests,197 or that, if indeed holding the office with their husband, they performed the rituals for the female members of the imperial family.198 The merely honorary character of the title can no longer be maintained.199 It may well be, as van Bremen argues, that, at least from the mid-first century onward, the priesthood of the imperial cult was more frequently held by husband and wife, to represent the unity of the imperial couple.200 However, notwithstanding this ideological aspect, in some cases the office could be held by women in their own right, as well.201 An inscription from Amorium honours Aelia Ammia, daughter of Alexander, wife of Marcus Julius Damianus, mother of asiarch Marcus Julius Aquila, as daughter of the city, high priestess of the greatest temples in Ephesus.202 Her position is not derived from that of her husband.203 It is worth noting that she is also extolled as a female role 196

They have built a bath-gymnasium complex and a bouleterion around 148 CE. KALINOWSKI, “The Vedii Antonini”, 110, 114, 118–119, 121, 145. The daughter (or granddaughter, cf. DMITRIEV, City Government, 284–285) of M. Cl. P. Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus, Vedia Phaedrina, wife of the sophist Flavius Damianus, himself one of the most generous benefactors of Ephesus, is a prytanis (IEph 733; she also appears in 678 and several other inscriptions). Vedia Phaedrina and her husband, T. Fl. Damianus probably built a palaestra, by the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd cent. (KALINOWSKI, 123, 145). On the building of a stoa by T. Fl. Damianus and Vedia Phaedrina: ENGELMANN, “Philostrat und Ephesos”, 77–87. On the controversy about the identity of the P. Vedius Antoninus in IEph 1489–1493: KALINOWSKI, 109–110, n. 5. 197 MACMULLEN, “Woman”, 214. 198 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 117–123, 126–127; CRAMME, Euergetismus, 279–280. 199 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 116, 119–120. 200 VAN BREMEN, Limits, 115, 117–121, 124–127, 134–139. 201 KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 26–27 (the honorary inscription to Aelia Ammia); BURRELL, Neokoroi, 21, 24, 346. The Claudia Crateia Veriana inscription (IEph 980) does not mention the position of the husbands, and three women are named as archiereiai, in a list that explicitly draws attention to holders of cultic offices. Representations of high priests and priestesses as agonothetes, with crowns having both male and female imperial busts show that there was no strict division of functions along gender lines. See also FRIESEN, “High Priestesses of Asia”, 136– 150; WITETSCHEK, following the statistics of Friesen, shows the progressive increase in the numbers of high priestesses, and the dominance of the title in Ephesus (Ephesische Enthüllungen, 120). 202 oi` evpi. th/j vAsi,aj [Ellhnej avrcierateu,ous[a]n tw/n megi,stwn evn vEfe,sw| naw/n evmartu,rhsan; second / early third cent., stele found in Karayatak, near Amorium. See HARRISON, “Amorium”, 181, KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life”, 26–27. Kearsley’s interpretation is followed by WITHERINGTON, Letters, 185. 203 Some have suggested that she bears the title on behalf of her son, an asiarch (M. WÖRRLE, “Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi” I, Chiron 22 (1992) 337–370 [368–370], modifying Knibbe’s reconstruction of IEph 689, ll. 11–12, followed by VAN BREMEN, Limits, 121; BURRELL, Neokoroi, 82, no. 91). Yet, see KEARSLEY’s response to Wörrle’s restoration of the text (“Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor”, 115, n. 85). Beside the fact that Wörrle’s change is not convincing, the view that Aelia Ammia held the title with her son contradicts van Bremen’s argument that from the mid-first century onward imperial priesthoods were shared by a couple (“an important ideological aspect of the high priesthood of the imperial cult […] was precisely that of the couple, serving the imperial couple”, p. 120). The fact that the son was an asiarch (on the hypothesis that archiereus and asiarch denote the same function), can be explained by his following the tradition of an elite family.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

329

model, excelling in semno,thj( evpieikei,a( swfrosu,nh and filandri,a. Although in the main van Bremen dismisses the emphasis on women holding the high priesthood alone, she admits that, at least in certain cases, this possibility should be left open.204 The Artemis-priesthood is reputed outside Ephesus as well. The posthumus honorary decree to Apollonis, daughter of Prokles, in Kyzikos, near Miletus, in the first century CE praises this priestess of Artemis Pythia.205 She is depicted as a paragon of female virtue: she is sw,fron, filandrota,th and excellent among women, an example to be followed by wives-to-be. Aphrodisian inscriptions from the first to the third century honour priestesses of Artemis, such as Apphia, daughter of Epiktetos and wife of Apollonios,206 and Aurelia Apphia.207 The latter is praised for the eminent way of performing her cultic duties and for her respectable and noble way of life (evpi. th/| tou/ bi,ou semnh/| te kai. avgaqh/)| .ȱAn honorary inscription from Iasos preserves the memory of Claudia Artemisia, priestess of Artemis Astias (pa,shi kekosme,nh|[n] avreth/i kai. swfrosu,nhi diafe,rous[an]).208

Priestesses of other cults are also well-attested.209 In Ephesus the priesthood and/or prytany of Hestia is the most common. Elsewhere we find priestesses of Athena, Demeter and Kore, Rome and Isis. Sosipatra, priestess of Athena Polias and Nikephoros in Pergamon is praised for her swfrosu,nh and euvse,beia,210 and Aurelia Claudia Apollonia is honoured by the same city for having carried out the priesthood of Athena Nikephoros in an honourable and magnificent manner.211 The priesthoods held by Plancia Magna in Perge have already been mentioned (ĺ4.2.2). Several inscriptions from Aphrodisias, dated to the imperial 204

E.g. Plancia Magna, archiereia of the imperial cult in Perge, VAN BREMEN, Limits, 123–124. Although a negative evidence, her examples of priests of the imperial cult whose wives did not hold the title (pp. 122–123) show that the priesthood of the imperial cult was not always filled by a couple. 205 KEARSLEY, ‘…in memory of her’, 10–17; SÈVE, “Un décret de consolation”, 327–359. Significant parts of the decree deal with the virtues of her parents and husband, but see ll. 5, 56, 64, 86 for her swfrosu,nh. The part referring to her merits is damaged, yet the exceptional honours bestowed on Apollonis show the importance of her benefactions. She receives a public funeral; sanctuaries have to be closed during the burial, and a number of statues are to be erected, exposed in public spaces and crowned annually during the festival of the Anthesteria. Couples registering their marriage with the kosmophylax are to place a garland on the statue. On the importance of public funerals and their rarity for women: DMITRIEV, City Government, 178; on the privilege of burial within the walls, VAN BREMEN, Limits, 170–171. 206 IAph2007 12.609 = PH 257116. Her husband is probably of notable lineage, but bears no title. 207 IAph2007 1.186. The designation of her descent may suggest the high standing of the family. Her father’s ascendancy is defined three generations back. According to the editors of IAph2007 none of her ancestors can be identified, and the family probably received Roman citizenship only in the third cent., after the Edict of Caracalla (211/212), the inscription being set shortly after this time. 208 Roman period; found at Iasos (Caria), IIasos 88 (PH 259096). 209 For several examples or priestesses in Priene, Pergamon, Kos, Sardis, Kyzikos, Cyprus, and elsewhere, commemorated by statues, from the fourth cent. BCE up to the Roman period: CONNELLY, Priestess, 135–142. 210 I Pergamon 2, 492 (second or first cent. BCE), PH 302157. Her father is a gymnasiarch. 211 I Pergamon 2, 525 (imperial period), in DMITRIEV, City Government, 145.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

330

Women on the public stage

period, praise priestesses and archiereiai: Diogeneia, archiereia, wife of archiereus Tiberius Claudius Apollonius Beronikianus;212 Antonia Flaviane, priestess of Arete, described as a paragon of female virtues: she was fi,landroj, filo,teknoj, her life was respectable (kosmi,wj) and her swfrosu,nh was unanimously recognised.213 Tata,ȱ priestessȱ forȱ lifeȱ of Hera and of the imperial family, is mother of the city and stephanephoros.214 During the imperial period women hold the Isis-priesthood, apparently subordinated to male officials.215 At least some of these priestesses are women of high status and wealth, as Claudia Paula, a priestess of Isis at Sinope.216

Religious associations were another setting where women could exert religious functions. Although private associations did not have the visibility of public cults, they were certainly stepping over the limits of the oikos and their structure frequently reproduced that of the polis, with its functions and hierarchies.217 Not few religious associations had female members, founders, patrons and officials (priestesses or presidents).218 Several associations form Piraeus, from the late fourth century BCE to the second century CE, have one or more priestesses. Thus the orgeǀnes of Bendis, just as those of the Mother of the Gods have a male and a female priest.219 Honours are bestowed on priestesses Glaukon and Krateia by the orgeǀnes of the Mother of the Gods in Piraeus in the late third century BCE.220 Probably a similar association honours priestess Onaso in the first century BCE.221 The orgeǀnes of Belela in Piraeus in the early second century CE have male and female priests; the membership list names several priestesses who dispensed benefactions on behalf of the association.222 Household-based associations often have priestesses.223 212

CIG 2818 (PH 257147). CIG 2786, ll. 21–32 (PH 257196). 214 CIG 2820.A (PH 257206). 215 HEYOB, The Cult of Isis, esp. 81–93; G. HORSLEY, “A Wealthy Devotee of Isis”, 44. They argue that the cult of Isis was not a female one, and men are more frequently attested as devotees. 216 RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, “Activités publiques”, 199; HEYOB, The Cult of Isis, 91. 217 WALKER-RAMISCH, “Associations”, 134; ASCOUGH, Associations, 25; GABRIELSEN, “Rhodian Associations”, 217; ID., “Brotherhoods”, 188–190; RAJAK, NOY, “Archisynagogoi”, 84. 218 On gender representation and women in associations: WALTZING, Corporations, I, 362, 365–368; POLAND, Geschichte, 289–298 (290–291: associations of priestesses); 345–346 (arguing that women held only cultic functions, priesthoods of considerable influence, or otherwise inferior offices); HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’”; ASCOUGH, Associations, 54–59, cf. also 33–34; HARLAND, “Mothers”, 57–79; KLOPPENBORG, “Collegia”, 25.. 219 IG II2 1361, and IG II2 1316, in KLOPPENBORG, ASCOUGH, Associations I, 33–39, 89–95, with further examples. See also II2 1283 (the Thracian orgeǀnes of Bendis, mid-third century BCE, in ID., 125–132) 220 IG II2 1314 and 1315, in KLOPPENBORG, ASCOUGH, Associations I, 147–150 and 150–154. For regulations concerning priestesses and their recognition see also IG II2 1328, in ID., 168–174. 221 IG II2 1334, in KLOPPENBORG, ASCOUGH, Associations I, 214–216. 222 IG II2 2361, in KLOPPENBORG, ASCOUGH, Associations I, 257–261. 223 The association of Sarapis and Isis in the Locrian Opus, in the house of Sosinike, its priestess, IG X/2.1 255, in KLOPPENBORG, ASCOUGH, Associations I, 357–362. Female founders of 213

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

331

An inscription from the second or third century CE may be of interest for the postmortem honouring of priestesses. A funerary altar from Thyatira, erected to priestess Ammias by her children and the members of her religious association (oi` mu,stai tw/n qew/n) indicates that she is seen to have acquired a quasi-supernatural status: “if anyone wants to learn the truth from me, let him pray at(?) the altar for whatever he wants and he will get it, via a vision, during nighttime and day.”224 It is not certain whether Ammias is here envisaged as a post-mortem oracle or as a teacher of the truth, given the fact that the inscription is provided by a group of initiates. At any rate this dedication is not only evidence for the female priesthood (of an unknown cult), but it indicates the esteem of the members of her religious community and the perception that she might provide a knowledge otherwise inaccessible.

Mothers of the collegia were generally members with certain functions within the association, as opposed to patronesses, often women of higher standing, who financed the cultic and other activities. 225 4.2.4.3 Cult officials in Roman religious life Several Roman cults had women as religious officials (sacerdotes, flaminicae, magistrae and ministrae).226 Among the most prominent cult officials, the Vestals were involved in the cult of Vesta and in the rites of Bona Dea and of the Argei.227 They acquired significant prestige and even some political influence, although at a considerable price.228 In the republican and imperial period priestesses of other deities (Ceres, Venus, Liber, Juno Populona, Isis and Magna Mater) are also attested in the Italic Peninsula. The priestesses of the imperial cult from the Western parts of the Empire (outside Rome) had a particularly important position. They were assigned to the cult of the female members of the imperial family and most often held their office in their own right, not as wives of a flamen / sacerdos provinciae.229

associations act as priestesses (the Dionysiac association of Pompeia Agrippinilla in Tusculum), ALEXANDER, “Bacchic Inscription”, 240–242. 224 ei; tij de. qe,lei to. avlhqe.j maqei/n para. evmou/( ivj to.n bwmo.n evneuxasqw o] a'n qe,lei kai. evpiteu,xetai( dia. o`pa,matoj( nukto.j kai. h`me,raj (GUARDUCCI, EG IV.119–120, repr. New Docs 4, 136). 225 HEMELRIJK, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’”, 121–125; VAN BREMEN, Limits, 27–28. (Exceptions exist. Salvia Marcellina, mother of the collegium Aesculapi et Hygiae [ILS 7213], is a patron, but apparently not a member.) 226 The matter is discussed extensively by SCHULTZ, Religious Activity, esp. 69–93. 227 STAPLES, Good Goddesses, 129–156; TAKÁCS, Vestals, esp. 81–89; SCHULTZ, Religious Activity, 73; CANCIK-LINDEMAIER, “Die vestalischen Jungfrauen”, 111–123. 228 On their ambivalent status: TAKÁCS, Vestals, 83. 229 As extensively documented by HEMELRIJK, “Imperial Priestesses”, 179–193. (Of 258 inscriptions she finds 26 flaminicae that clearly are wives of flamines, p. 185)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

332

Women on the public stage

The public priestesses (sacerdotes publicae) enjoyed a recognition not assigned to priestesses of private cults.230 They belonged to the local elites and distinguished themselves through euergetism.231  Social status was of considerable importance for acquiring religious offices. Priestesses (sacerdotes) were freeborn women, mostly from elite families. Lower functions, like those of magistrae and ministrae were accessible to freedwomen and slaves as well.232 The imperial priestesses most often came from equestrian or decurial ranks, although in some cases they could stem from families of freedpersons, or were freedwomen themselves. Acquiring the imperial priesthood contributed significantly to status elevation.233 On the other hand, the changes in women’s overall social condition also influenced the position of priestesses.234 230

In Pompeii eleven sacerdotes publicae are known from the early imperial period. WARD, “Public Priestesses”, 321–325; M. COOLEY, A. COOLEY, Pompeii, 96–102. See also MACMULLEN, “Woman”, 210: “To be chosen priestess brought one before the public eye very sharply. For Eumachia as for others we know of, election was connected with great wealth, wide business associations, a husband an office-holder, and forebears the same. We can only guess that certain personal qualities were needed as well.” 231 Mamia, daughter of Publius Mamius erected the temple of the Genius of Augustus on the forum, an act of civic benefaction and a political statement of allegiance toward the emperor (CIL X, 816, 998). Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, of a wealthy local family, financed extensive building projects (CIL X, 810–813). Her possible attempt to emulate at the local level the political influence exerted by Livia in Rome (WARD, 324–327) is rather speculative, but what matters is her public prominence due to her religious function and civic benefactions. She may have also been a patroness of a professional association, as suggested by CIL X, 813. Several other public priestesses coming from local economic and/or political elites are known. Lassia, a public priestess of Ceres, from an important wine-producing family in Campania was a sacerdos publica, just as her granddaughter Clodia (CIL X, 1074). Holconia was the daughter of M. Holconius Rufus, duovir, one of the major local magistrates, of equestrian rank (CIL X, 950/1). Istacidia was the daughter of N. Istacidius, duovir during Augustus (CIL X, 999). Alleia Decimilla, the daughter of M. Alleius Lucius Libella, aedil, duovir, prefect and quinquennalis, was public priestess of Ceres (CIL X, 1036). Two other public priestesses of Ceres, Aquivia Quarta and [Ru]fula are commemorated in the building erected by Eumachia (CIL X, 812). Alleia, sacerdos publica of Venus and Ceres (probably during Nero), was the daughter of the candidate to the office of duovir quinquennalis Alleius Nigidius Maius. Vibia Sabina was the public priestess of Julia Augusta (Livia or Agrippina Minor). See WARD, “Public Priestesses”, 321–323, 328–331; M. COOLEY, A. COOLEY, Pompeii, 101–102, 127–129; SCHULTZ, “Sanctissima femina”, 17. Priestesses of various other cults or religious associations are known in Pompeii, cf. WARD, “Public Priestesses”, 320 (Terentia Paramone, priestess of Demeter, IG XIV, 702), in Naples (Tettia Casta) and other towns (MACMULLEN, “Woman”, 211). He adds references to women of Tarentum, Reate and Milan acting within an imperial cult association, the iuvenes. 232 SCHULTZ, Religious Activity, 74, 75–79 (priestesses of Ceres) 140–142; EAD., “Sanctissima femina”, 17. 233 HEMELRIJK, “Imperial Priestesses”, 188–189. 234 Due to the infrequency of marriages with manus, esp. with confarreatio, the position of flamen Dialis could not be filled from the first cent. BCE onward. This determined Tiberius to alleviate the regulations concerning the flaminica. According to Tac., Ann. 4,16 she was required to submit to her husband only in cultic matters (“sacrorum causa in potestate viri, cetera promisco

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

333

Women were not involved solely in “women’s religions”, associated with fertility and childbirth. Moreover, female participation in a certain cult did not necessarily imply that a specific cult addressed a “women’s deity”.235 Touching on this matter is not without interest, as it shows a more gender-inclusive participation in religion than sometimes claimed. 4.2.4.4 The attributions of priestesses. Speech in religious contexts The attributions of male and female priests were essentially cultic-ritual, related to sacrifices, processions, the adorning, carrying and revealing of statues and sacred objects, decorating the sanctuaries, preserving the sacred flame, performing libations or lustral ceremonies.236 Priests of both sexes often enacted the divine drama through ritual, by means of impersonation and mimesis.237 The performance of public prayers and supplications in various crises also belonged to the attributions of priests and priestesses.238 More interestingly, some cults included a theologia, a prose eulogy of the gods.239 Theologoi were present in public cults and in religious associations.240 The office was more often performed by male priests, yet, women theologoi are also known.241 This shows that certain forms of verbal expression by women were acceptable in religious contexts, especially in Greek religion.

feminarum iure ageret”). TREGGIARI shows that such a decree was passed already in 11 BCE (Roman Marriage, 23). Mueller explains the lack of candidates with upper-class women’s unwillingness to undergo the ritual of confarreatio that would have placed them under the manus of their husband. Yet, Tacitus assigns the reticence to undergo confarreatio to both men and women. On the ways of acquiring manus (usus, confarreatio, coemptio), and its legal consequences, as well as the case of the flamines, TREGGIARI, 16–32; MUELLER, Roman Religion, 1–2, 183, n. 7. 235 On the gender-inclusiveness of the cult of Juno Sospita, Juno Lucina (a cult surviving up to the imperial period), as shown by the dedications made by men, including one by Hadrian: SCHULTZ Religious Activity, 20, 22–23, 55–56, 162. A much debated issue is the genderexclusiveness of two particular rites, the December rite of Bona Dea and that of Hercules at Ara Maxima, from which men and women, respectively, seem to have been barred. Yet, again, the epigraphic material attests the participation of men in the cult of Bona Dea, and female involvement in the cult of Hercules. STAPLES, 13–30; SCHULTZ, 21–22, 61–69. 236 Apul., Met. 11. See CONNELLY, Priestess, 173, 176–178, 179–182, 187; GOFF, Citizen Bacchae, 62–63; CLINTON, “Sacred Officials”, 1–143; TAKÁCS, Vestal Virgins, 83–85. 237 CONNELLY, Priestess, 105–108. 238 CONNELLY, Priestess, 70, 173–176. Laments in mourning rituals were eminently female attributions. ROISMAN, “Women’s Free Speech”, 96 passim; MCCLURE, Spoken Like a Woman, 22, on ritual lament and its legal curbing by Solon in Athens, by Gambrion in Asia Minor (3rd cent.), on its control by men in drama, and its subordination to epithaphions pronounced by men: 40–45. 239 ZIEHEN, qeolo,goj, 2032. 240 POLAND, Geschichte, 49, 268. 241 E.g. at Smyrna, in the cult of Demeter; POLAND, Geschichte, 268, 399; ZIEHEN, qeolo,goj, 2033; MOMIGLIANO, “Man and Woman”, 586–587 (women mystagogoi, theologoi, hymnodoi).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

334

Women on the public stage

In fact, the only truly accepted form of female public speech occured in the sacred sphere. Its most important kind, inspired speech, was performed by priestesses and prophetesses, in oracles responding to religious matters, political questions or personal crises.242 The most evocative is the role of the Pythia, recorded by historians243 and playwrights.244 The abundance of references to Pythian oracles shows the high regard for this religious role and the acceptance of this specific form of public religious articulation by inspired women in Greek religion. The question whether all references to the Pythia’s intervention are authentic is irrelevant. Ancient readers obviously regarded these oracles and reports as genuine.245 The importance assigned to her role in antiquity is beyond question. Older scholarship was dominated by the view that the Pythia was an uneducated, hysterical woman, babbling unintelligible words in a state of frenzy brought about by intoxication, whose oracles had to be put in comprehensible form by the male prophetes.246 This view is compellingly challenged in contemporary discussion. There is no ancient evidence about the prophetes either speaking for, rewording, versifying or even interpreting the utterances of the Pythia; conversely, according to the overwhelming majority of the sources the Pythia delivered the oracles herself.247 242

FONTENROSE finds that about three-fourth of the historical oracles of the Pythia refer to religious matters (Delphic Oracle, 26–27, 31). On the definition of historical (not necessarily genuine) oracles: 7–8, on their characterisation: 13–24. 243 Ancient historians record numerous oracles by the Pythia in decisive moments. Pausanias has a multitude of references. To mention only three: she has a role in Lycurgus’ legislation (2.4); in the renewal of the Olympic games (5.4.6); and in the refusal of Themistocles’ Persian spoils (10.14.5). See also Str. 9.3.5; Hdt. 6.66; 7.111 (The Bessi, from the Thracian tribe of Satrae have a promantis “who utters the oracle, as at Delphi”); Thuc. 5.16.2. MAURIZIO refers to 600 oracles collected by Parke and Wormell (1956), Fontenrose (1978) and Andersen (1987), cf. “Voice”, 38–54 (40, n. 14). For the political crises when the Pythia was consulted: DILLON, Girls and Women, 99–100. 244 Aesch., Sept. 745–749; Eur., Ion 90–93. 245 Rightly MAURIZIO, “Voice”, 40, n. 14. 246 Accordingly the prophets manipulated the utterances, being eventually the chief artisans of the oracles (AMANDRY, La mantique apollinienne à Delphes, Paris, 1950, 168, quoted by MAURIZIO, “Voice”, 38, n. 4; more recently ROSENBERG, Griechische Orakel, 57). Rosenberg draws his view from the etymology of prophetes, that would mean speaking for someone else. But he misses the fact that the Pythia herself receives the title prophetis several times (Eur. Ion. 42, 321, 1322; Pl., Phdr. 244ab; IG XII/3, 1349/863 [= PH 76886]; Str. 9.3.5; Plut., Def. or. 8, Mor. 414b, cf. MAURIZIO, “Anthropology”, 70, n. 12, and AUNE, Prophecy, 28, 351 n. 49). In addition prophetes primarily means speaking on behalf of the divinity (AUNE, 29), or before others (i.e. publicly), not for other cultic officials. The Pythia is referred to as promantis by Hdt 6.66; 7.111; Thuc. 5.16.2. 247 FONTENROSE, Delphic Oracle, 204, 217–219, 223–224, 228; MAURIZIO, “Anthropology”, 69–86; EAD., “Voice”, 38–39; AUNE, Prophecy, 31; FORBES, Prophecy, 110. Already DODDS, though rather sceptical, and generally giving more credit to Plutarch’s depiction of the Pythia, had thought it possible that the Pythia actually gave oracles and was able to utter verse oracles (The Greeks and the Irrational, 74, 92, n. 70). Forbes remarks that even in cases when some have attempted to alter the oracles, they are said to have conspired with the Pythia, not with the prophetes (Hdt. 5.63,90; 6.66,75; Thuc. 5.16.2), moreover, when inquirers who found the oracle

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

335

The often quoted ambiguity of the Pythian oracles248 was variously explained: as a feature of prophetic speech, as a result of subsequent poetic elaboration, as a deliberate production securing that oracles would be reliable in all circumstances, or as a response to the needs of the client.249 Yet, Fontenrose questions the ambiguity and extraordinary character of what he regards as historical oracles.250 Forbes appropriately distinguishes the alleged “incoherent babbling” of the Pythia, denoting linguistic unintelligibility, from the obscurity of Pythian oracles.251

In her quality of woman holding a religious office that entails speaking in public, the Pythia does not stand alone. Oracles were reportedly delivered by other inspired women described as prophetis or promantis, in sanctuaries like those of Apollo at Patara, at Didyma (Apollo Branchides), in Argos (the oracle of Apollo Deiradiotes), or of Zeus at Dodona.252 The Delphic Sibyl is a largely legendary character,253 but references to her confirm the acceptability of female inspired speech. Women priests and prophets carried out a form of authoritative speech, uttered and received in the conviction that human words transmit the will of the gods.254 Authority was often linked to a sort of prophetic inspiration, a state of enthousiasmos.255 This authoritative voice was heard most commonly within the confines of a religious institution,256 but this does not lessen the significance attached in Greek religion to inspired female speech. Not only priestesses and prophetesses could speak in public in a religious context. In the second century CE Delphi one Auphria is commemorated for a number of speeches she gave during the Pythian games.257 incomprehensible return for explanation, it is the Pythia who explains the meaning (Hdt. 1.91). Passages like Aesch., Sept. 745–749; Eur., Ion 91–93 also show the priestess speaking for Apollo. For a discussion of the Pythia’s role see also DILLON, Girls and Women, 98–100. For criticism of the intoxication-theory: DODDS, 73–74; DILLON, 99; for the critique of the view of a hysterical or frenzied state: FONTENROSE, 204–212; FORBES, 107. 248 Although this ambiguity is sometimes exaggerated; as MAURIZIO has shown, of the roughly 600 utterances, only one third are ambiguous (“Voice”, 40, n. 14). 249 MAURIZIO, “Voice”, 40–44, passim. 250 FONTENROSE, The Delphic Oracle, 22. 251 FORBES, Prophecy, 109 (the latter is due to a metaphoric mode of expression that entails “obscure, cryptic and enigmatic terms”, pertaining to the oracular genre). 252 AUNE, Prophecy, 28–29. On the cult of Apollo Deiradiotes and on the female promantis see also KADLETZ, “Cult”, 93–101. Inspired female speech also appears in drama. Cassandra’s speech is an example of inspired oracular utterance issued by a woman, lacking authority. 253 AUNE, Prophecy, 36–37. 254 This remains true even when many oracles simple reply in the affirmative or negative, or point to choices between alternative decisions. 255 FORBES, Prophecy, 141. 256 MAURIZIO, “Voice”, 51. The Sybil is an exception (inaccessible to historical investigation). 257 FD III.4, 79 = PH 240198 (lo,gouj pollou.j kai. kalou.j kai. h`di,stouj); AGUSTA-BOULAROT, “Autour d’une grammatica”, 322.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

336

Women on the public stage

It is noteworthy that Roman religion has nothing comparable to the phenomenon of inspired female speech embodied by the Pythia, at least not in an officially sanctioned and widely accepted form. The Sibyls are quoted by Roman authors, but they belong to the legendary past. Although the Sibylline books are consulted on various occasions (most often for the legitimation of a political or religious decision), their interpretation is the task of the decemviri or of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis, i.e. of a male collegium.258 A response to inquiries concerning the future is more often given by the haruspices. Female prophets are a marginal phenomenon, often associated with magic (hariolae) or with foreignness. 259 The brief overview of the functions of cultic officials shows that the tasks of priests of both sexes were essentially ritual. Their attributions were not centred on speech. Women’s ritual performance was generally accepted. Speech was not central, but priestesses could carry out public prayers and theologiai. Inspired speech, though a special manifestation in certain cults and not intrinsically connected to all female priesthoods, is the most important form of public, authoritative female speech in a religious context. As such, it is a Greek phenomenon that has no equivalent in Roman religion. 4.2.4.5 Summary The evidence for the presence of women in the religious sphere, including a wide range of epigraphic material from both East and West, shows that women were accepted actors in public and private cults. Most often priesthoods (hereditary or purchased) and other religious offices were held by women belonging to local political and/or economic elites. In the Greek East religious and civic offices were quite often associated, and priestesses commonly acted as civic benefactors or as patrons of voluntary associations. The familial background increased the social and religious prominence of these women, but it did not efface the personal autonomy and social influence they acquired by acceding to offices and priesthoods. The euergetism carried out by these women, frequently from their own resources and the official recognition they received in return favour this conclusion. Religion, in spite of some gender-specific cults or rites, was largely gender-inclusive and even on the (rather inaccurate) supposition that male positions were more important and more prestigious, women played an important, socially sanctioned role in religion. Such public roles were 258

TAKÁCS, Vestals, 51, 60, 62–70; ORLIN, “Urban Religion”, 60. Like the unauthorised Syrian prophetess accompanying Marius (cf. Plut., Mar. 27.9); HORSTER, “Living on Religion”, 338; ORLIN, “Urban Religion”, 67. 259

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

The public presence of women in the Greco-Roman world

337

regarded as entirely acceptable, moreover, as roles of respectable women. The presence of women in the public religious domain, especially their holding of priesthoods is in a sense at odds with the ideology prescribing female invisibility and women’s relegation to the house. The attributions of priests of both sexes were essentially cultic-ritual. However, certain priesthoods, especially when connected with supplications, theologiai or oracular-prophetic utterances implied speech as well. Inspired speech was endowed with no little authority. Teaching, introducing doctrine, which is a prominent role of the religious officials in the Christian communities (especially from the perspective of the PE), was not really part of the priestly attributions, except if one thinks of mystagogy and theologia. In what follows I will argue that the prescriptive passages of 1 Timothy aiming at the exclusion of women from public religious roles also reflect a contrast between reality, namely women’s participation in religiousecclesial functions and ideology. As shown earlier, the prohibition to teach had to do with women’s ideological exclusion from authority and authoritative speech. It also reflected the particularities of the Christian cult (at least as shown by the PE), that placed less emphasis on ritual and prophetic speech, but assigned a prominent place to teaching doctrine. At any rate, these limitations are meaningful only if they imply a different practice. Further, the restrictions imposed on better-off women (1 Tim 2,9–10; 5,6) seem to suggest that they exercised certain influence in the ekklƝsia, probably comparable to that of their peers in contemporary society, even when on a far smaller scale. For this reason the last part of this investigation will explore the association between wealth and authority and the restrictions imposed on women’s (display of) wealth in ancient literature and in 1 Timothy.

4.3 Women in the ekklƝsia As shown earlier, the perspective provided by literary sources concerning the division of spaces and gender roles is essentially prescriptive. The “political” exclusion from the life of the polis reflects mentalities that relegate women to the oikos. Yet, even under these circumstances, various forms of public presence challenge this ideology. In the Greco-Roman world some women are accepted as patrons and benefactors, in view of their social and economic standing. They are invested with informal authority, and clients or communities expect support and protection from them. These expectations, in conjunction with the public visibility provided by honorary inscriptions and statues indicate that wealthy and prestigious women can and do acquire social influence. In Asia Minor the contrast between ideology and reality is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

338

Women on the public stage

even more manifest, due to the access of elite women to certain magistracies. A variety of priesthoods, some of considerable religious and civic importance are open to women. Voluntary associations constitute another social framework in which women, even of lower status, can hold offices and priesthoods outside the private sphere proper. The implications of these observations for the PE are twofold. (a) These epistles reflect a similar contrast between ideology, which confines women to the private sphere and reality, where women carry out various roles in the community. The PE are therefore analogous to contemporary prescriptive sources. They are part of the same long-standing tradition asserting the distinction between the public sphere (the polis) and the private domain (the oikos) and the corresponding division of gender roles. Texts like 1 Tim 2,9– 15; 5,14 and Tit 2,3–5 construe the “ideal” of traditional gender roles (ĺ3.6). (b) The Pastorals indirectly show that contemporary ecclesial reality is more complex and more gender-inclusive. The type and scope of the roles assumed by women in the communities addressed by the PE can only be surmised, based on some references from the authentic Pauline epistles, or from the PE themselves. Women appear to be involved in various activities and ministries in the church, which are either tacitly, though reluctantly accepted (the female diakonoi and the widows, 1 Tim 3,11; 5,9–12), or vehemently criticised. Assuming teaching roles and authority (1 Tim 2,12, perhaps 1 Tim 5,13) and/or learning from competing teachers (2 Tim 3,6–7) are censured. The Pastorals attempt to alter and counter practices that had developed at earlier stages in the Pauline communities. Therefore we need to briefly recall the (often slim) data, provided by the authentic Pauline epistles and to a lesser degree by Acts, that offer some insight into the ministries in which women were involved. Reconstructing the realities of the community addressed by the Pastorals from earlier sources is not without difficulties. The practice in the various communities founded by Paul may have been different, already in his lifetime. One may not be sure that Asia Minor communities had ministries and practices similar to those of the Corinthian church. Additionally, in Acts, theological concerns shape historical narratives and limit our possibility to reconstruct ecclesial praxis. However, the prohibitions issued by the PE suggest that women were involved in some activities and ministries. Information offered by other sources may be corroborated with that from the PE and may illuminate existing practices. More important is the fact that while Paul does not disprove women’s participation in various ministries, the Pastorals use the authority of the same apostle precisely to that end. I shall argue that the regulations imposed by the PE do not reflect a recent or larger involvement of women in ministry, enhanced by uncontrolled social emancipation. On the contrary, these epistles attempt to terminate or limit already existing practices that may have

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

339

even tended toward institutionalisation (the ministry of female diakonoi and the widows). The PE attempt to curb a previously accepted practice on ideological grounds. This endeavour will not be entirely successful in the short term, as the later Acts of Paul and Thecla reflect a(n ascetic) Pauline community where women are still imagined as having a share in mission. Yet, their long-term effective history shows that the PE will eventually prevail. I will not address here the global question of women’s participation in ministries in the various churches, as reflected by different NT-traditions. I shall omit other sources like the gospels or the Book of Revelation and I shall not address the topic from the perspective of later sources like the apocryphal writings (with the exception of the APTh), nor shall I touch upon the intriguing phenomenon of the New Prophecy. The reasons for this choice are twofold. First, such broad analysis would suffice for a volume in its own right and would go beyond the focus of this volume. Second, the question would not be entirely relevant – the PE are written in and for a Pauline community, in the name of Paul, in order to change practices that were current in the lifetime of the apostle. Because the PE purport to be written by Paul, I wish to show precisely the extent to which their views and regulations are different from those of Paul. By limiting myself to a comparison of women’s engagement in ministry in Paul and in the PE, I do not wish to argue that such engagement had a simple, linear evolution or involution. I am aware that later sources (like those mentioned above) do show that in various regions women served in a number of roles in the church for a longer time. Yet, my main contention here is that: (a) the PE wish to alter, in the name of Paul, practices recognised by Paul and (b) the PE do not describe the (more gender-inclusive) ecclesial reality of their time. As seen from the APTh, even some decades after the PE a second-century writer appealing to the authority of Paul can envisage women with an active role in the church. 4.3.1 Women in the Pauline communities The undisputed epistles provide evidence for women carrying out a variety of tasks in the Pauline mission.1 The matter will not be discussed in detail. Some points are made to show that during the lifetime of Paul the en1 On the participation of women in the Pauline mission: DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 160–162, 167–181, ID., Urchristliche Prophetie, 268–270; KLAUCK, “Vom Reden und Schweigen”, 232– 245; BIERINGER, “Women and Leadership” I–II, 221–237, 316–336; GIELEN, “Wahrnehmung”, 129–165; TIWALD, “Entwicklungslinien”, 120–128. See also THRAEDE, “Ärger”, 99–101; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 306–307. On the contrast between the stance of Paul and of the PE: TOWNER, Letters, 218–219; FIORE, PE, 67, 70; MONTAGUE, 1–2 Tim, Tit, 65.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

340

Women on the public stage

gagement of women in mission and worship was not inconceivable. These considerations are not meant to make Paul the apostle of women’s liberation or the champion of egalitarianism.2 Such a perspective would be anachronistic. Yet, a comparison suggests that the PE intend to curb a female involvement in ministry that had developed around the fifties and continued up to the end of the century. Women are accepted as prophets in Corinth (1 Cor 11,5).3 The issue has some additional interest for the PE as in 1 Corinthians prophecy is a form of public, religious, authoritative speech open to women.4 Paul describes prophecy as an intelligible, edifying form of instruction (14,26–31; v. 19: a;llouj kathch,sw; v. 31: i[na pa,ntej manqa,nwsin).5 There are no reasons to infer that prophecy voiced by women lacked this quality.6 Therefore it is reasonable to argue that through the gift of prophecy women exerted a form of teaching in the community. Paul addresses a noteworthy number of female collaborators. In Philippians Euodia and Syntyche are mentioned alongside Clement and other unnamed co-workers (sunergo,i) as having struggled with Paul for the 2 Some authors are sceptical about the retrieval of historical information from 1 Cor for other reasons. Thus ØKLAND thinks that in 1 Cor “man” and “woman” are cosmological entities, rhetorical devices expressing a gendered view of the cosmos (Women, 172, 178, 224–225, 236). I am not convinced by the argument. 3 SCHRAGE, 1 Kor II, 506 (Paul speaks about women prophesying without disapproving or underestimating the practice, and presupposing the charismatic equality between genders); LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 240–241 (women prophesying just as men, in the “gemeindliche Öffentlichkeit”; not silently); C. WOLFF, 1 Kor, 250; MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor III, 33, 44, 47 (the problem is not that women prophesy, but with the way they do it; Paul does not prohibit women from prophesying, but wants them to do it as women); also 231–218 (the contradiction between 1 Cor 11,5 and 14,33b–36, and the rejection of the hypotheses defending the authenticity of the latter or attempting to harmonise the two texts); DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 187; ORR, WALTHER, 1 Cor, 259 (prophecy as “oral communication in worship [‘preaching’?]”, not silent prayer). 4 For prophecy as authoritative speech: LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 240, 297, 299. 5 On prophecy as edification and instruction (contrasted to glossolalia), see LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 240, 297–300, 310; LUZ, “Stages”, 53–54. With Joseph VERHEYDEN we have dealt in more detail with the restrictive relecture of 1 Cor 11,5 by 1 Tim 2,11–12 (“Text-critical and Intertextual Remarks”, 376–406). The contrast between prophecy as spontaneous manifestation, “subject to the subsequent discernment of the community and its authorities”, and teaching “done by those recognized by prior discernment as qualified to do so, that is, those who have an official teaching function in the Church” (MONTAGUE, 1–2 Tim, Tit, 64–65), is anachronistic for first century Pauline communities, as it presupposes an institutionalised ministry controlling religious expression and solely qualified to teach in the lifetime of the Apostle. 6 Defending the authenticity of 1 Cor 14,33–35, ØKLAND argues that prophecy is a ritual form of speech, acceptable in women, whereas lalei/n (14,34) denotes rational, male speech (“logosdiscourse”), i.e. teaching, proper to men (Women, 197–198, 204–208). Yet, prophecy in 1 Cor 14 is no less “rational” than teaching, and, as shown by 14,19.31, it is also a form of teaching. Thus, whereas in antiquity speech is indeed gendered, in 1 Cor prophecy is not a form of female speech that could be opposed to teaching (all the more as male prophets exist).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

341

gospel (4,2–3, sunh,qlhsan). Romans 16 stands out through the number of women named as co-workers. Junia is greeted (with Andronicus, 16,7) as prominent among the apostles, and preaching the gospel is known to be a constitutive task of apostles.7 Euergetism, assistance in mission and leadership may have been carried out by women like Phoebe, the diakonos of the church in Cenchreae and prostatis of many Christians, Paul included (16,2).8 Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis have toiled in the Lord (16,12); the context and content of their labour is unknown, but one may infer that evn kuri,w| suggests some sort of task in the service of the community, probably including the transmission of the gospel, since the same term is used for the leaders of the Thessalonian church (1 Thess 5,12).9 Mary was probably engaged in a similar effort (16,5, evkopi,asen). A special case is that of Prisca, mentioned by Paul in Romans, together with Aquila, as his fellow workers (sunergoi,) in Christ. The term may seem broad, but Paul uses it for several other collaborators involved in mission, 7

On Junia as female, and on the inclusive meaning of evn toi/j avposto,loij: EPP, Junia (2005); BIERINGER, “Women”, 322–328; LOHFINK, “Weibliche Diakone”, 327–331; CRANFIELD, Rom II, 788 (with Chrysostom), 789 (itinerant missionaries; Rom 16,2.7.12 contradicting Paul’s alleged disregard for women); WILCKENS, Röm 12–16, 135 (with n. 647), 136, speaking of Andronicus and Junia, as an “Apostelpaar in der Mission tätig”, even before Paul (cf. Gal 1,17); MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor III, 43; HAACKER, Röm, 320–321 (suggesting that she probably was the wife of Andronicus, in view of 1 Cor 9,5). Others, however, argue that 1 Cor 9,5 refers to female assistants in mission: WILCKENS, 136 (corroborating the text with 1 Cor 9,5 he notes: “Röm 16,7 zeigt daß die mitreisenden Frauen keineswegs nur stille Begleiterinnen ihrer Männer zu sein hatten, sondern an der missionarischen Aufgabe ebenso teilhaben konnten wie an der apostolischen Autorität”; for this reason 1 Cor 14,33b–36 is, when not an interpolation, is certainly not the norm); J.G. COOK, “1 Cor 9,5”, 352–368. 8 On Phoebe as diakonos in a technical sense (as holding the office or ministry of a diakonos): CRANFIELD, Rom II, 781 (cf. Phil 1,1; 1 Tim 3,8; engaged in the service of the needy), 782–783 (yet, prostatis probably not in the technical sense of the male prostatƝs, as someone providing formal legal protection, unlikely to be offered by a woman, but the term is suggestive of high social position, wealth and independence); SCHLIER, Römerbrief, 441–442 (similar to Cranfield in interpreting prostatis); DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 175–176 (remarking that her role may not be restricted to charity); LOHFINK, “Weibliche Diakone”, 326–327; WILCKENS, Röm 12–16, 131 (the earliest witness to the formation of the institution of diaconate; Phoebe was involved not only in charity, but also in organising a center [“Anlaufstelle”] for incoming and outgoing Christians), 132 (her support for many Christians, Paul included); MERKLEIN, GIELEN, 1 Kor, 43; J.G. COOK, “1 Cor 9,5”, 361. BIERINGER thinks she had a leadership role. He notes that she is assigned to a local church, and that Paul uses the same diakonia-theology for his own ministry and for Phoebe’s. Paul acknowledges her superior position (“Women”, 229–232). On Phoebe as patron, but not diakonos in a technical sense: HAACKER, Röm, 318. MERZ argues that Phoebe is a patroness in the full sense of the term, and her ministry is not limited to the a local community (Chencrea) “Phöbe”, 130–140. On Phoebe’s position and patronage compared to that of Junia Theodora in Corinth, KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, 190, 202; KLAUCK, “Junia Theodora”, 55–56. 9 DAUTZENBERG compares these women’s toil for the gospel to that of Paul (“Stellung”, 178– 179). WILCKENS speaks of the hard work Tryphaena and Tryphosa carried out in mission, and describes Persis as a “Missionsgehilfin” (Röm 12–16, 137).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

342

Women on the public stage

like Timothy (Rom 16,21, cf. 1 Thess 3,2), Epaphroditus (Phil 2,25), Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Phlm 1,24). Acts provides an additional detail about Prisca. She, together with her husband, is said to have expounded the way of God to Apollo (Acts 18,26); a remark that is relevant not in terms of historicity (ultimately inaccessible), but because it reflects the contemporary view that women could provide instruction on Christian doctrine. Interpreting or expounding the ways of the Lord to Apollo is commonly understood as teaching him and/or deepening his knowledge of Christian, more specifically Pauline doctrine.10 The minimum this text shows is that the author of Acts still thinks that women may carry out some sort of instruction. Prisca’s prominence in the church and in mission is frequently noted.11 Obviously, the evidence for women prophesying, teaching and participating in mission needs to be weighed against 1 Cor 14,34–35, prohibiting women from speaking in the ekklƝsia and demanding their submission to male authority. Their wish to speak in public is depicted as shameful and is contrasted with the appropriate status of the submitted learner, placed in the private sphere. The meaning and authenticity of the text is highly debated and it is not my aim to analyse the matter in detail. Yet, the discussion cannot be entirely avoided. The problem arises mainly because of the contradiction between 1 Cor 11 and 14. In 11,5 it is clear that women prophesy. Further, according to 10 PESCH, Apg II, 160–161, 163 (Apollo, the “begabte Theologe”, has to be taught by Prisca and Aquila, Paul’s co-workers in mission, i.e., according to the author of Acts, he has to be introduced in Pauline theology, a point emphasising Paul’s superiority); CRANFIELD, Rom II, 783– 784; DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 174; LOHFINK takes it for granted that Prisca, just as other female co-workers of Paul, has participated in preaching [Verkündigung], using her case to argue that Phoebe probably did the same (“Weibliche Diakone”, 326–327). See also HOFMANN, “Christliche Frauen”, 288–289 (noting that 2 Tim 4,19 preserves her precedence); J.G. COOK, “1 Cor 9,5”, 358. MOUNCE discards the text as evidence, however without giving a reason (PE, 126). 11 Reflected e.g. by her precedence over her husband in most of the references to her, both in Paul and in Acts. CRANFIELD, Rom II, 784 (adding her possibly earlier conversion to Christianity); WEISER, Apg I, 510; PESCH, Apg II, 161; SCHLIER, Röm, 443; DAUTZENBERG, “Stellung”, 173; WILCKENS, Röm 12–16, 134, n. 639; HAACKER, Röm, 319. H. MARSHALL suggests that she may have been of higher rank, a more active personality, or (quoting Knight), this may have been merely a courtesy to a woman (PE, 828). Courtesy to women in offering them precedence reflects rather modern romantic views. On the precedence of women’s names over men’s, as expression of higher status: BOUDREAU FLORY, “Where Women Precede Men”, 216–224. For a discussion of the textual variants concerning Prisca, see KUREK-CHOMYCZ, “‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency”, 107–128 (her transformation into a man in P46, the change to the diminutive, possibly derogatory Priscilla, her omission from certain mss., like 614 sy p, hmg, her placing in the second position at Acts 18,26 in D H L Ȍ 0120 88, 614, 1241, 1611, 1739 Ù sy samss arm, her bracketing in the same verse by the change of avkou,santej to the sg. avkou,santoj, having thereby only Aquila listening to Apollo, to cite only a few).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

343

14,31, all those holding this gift are allowed to prophesy; prophets only need to respect a certain order, so as to ensure everyone’s access to learning and to receiving encouragement. Hence there is an obvious reciprocity in both prophesying / instructing and learning. This reciprocity is nonetheless denied in 14,34–35, which expects women to keep silent. The latter text has striking semantic and thematic similarities with 1 Tim 2,11–12, that have been explained in various ways.12 Based on text- and literary-critical arguments and on the discrepancy between this injunction and 1 Cor 11,5 as well as the rest of 1 Cor 14, numerous authors regard vv. 34–35 as an early interpolation, probably by the time when the Corpus Paulinum was edited.13 A few defend their authenticity, mostly because no extant manuscript omits these verses and the text-critical evidence for an interpolation is thought to be unconvincing,14 or because of a certain understanding of inspiration.15 The debate concerning the authenticity and interpretation of 1 Cor 14,34– 35 shows not only the conflict between this text and 11,5, but also the fact that the scope of women’s silencing is understood differently. Those scholars who regard the verses as Pauline, but perceive the tension with 11,5 tend to 12 For the literary dependence of 1 Tim 2,11–12 on 1 Cor 14,34–35: ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 128–130; WAGENER, Ordnung, 94–96; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 334–339. Those who defend the authenticity of 1 Cor 14,34–35 often assume two different Pauline regulations: TOWNER, Letters, 194; WITHERINGTON, Letters, 221–222, and even H. MARSHALL, 439–441 (though an adept of allonymity). A few think that 1 Cor 14,34–35 is more restrictive than 1Tim 2,11–12, e.g. DAUTZENBERG, Prophetie, 258–260 (but his argument is not convincing). THRAEDE thinks that the interpolation in 1 Cor is later than 1 Tim 2 (Ärger, 112, cf. 109). 13 WEIß, 1 Kor, 342; THRAEDE, Ärger, 111–112; SENFT, Cor, 182–183; DAUTZENBERG, Prophetie, 257–273; CONZELMANN, 1 Kor, 298–299; PAYNE, “Fuldensis”, 240í262; ID., “Ms. 88”, 152í158; ID., “Text-Critical Function”, 105í112; PAYNE, CANART, “Originality”, 105í113; FEE, 1 Cor, 699–705; SCHRAGE, 1 Kor III, 458, 479í492 and the quoted literature; KLAUCK, Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt, 64–66; ID., 1 Kor, 107í108; MURPHY-O’CONNOR, 1 Cor, 811í812, ID., 1 Cor, 133; HAYS, 1 Cor, 245–249; HORRELL, Social Ethos, 184–195; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 93í94; WALKER, Interpolations, 63–90; LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 316–321; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 335–336; F. WATSON, “Authority”, 525; EPP, Junia, 15–19; BIERINGER, “Women”, 223. Some even argue that both texts could stem from the same or a similar circle (CONZELMANN, 1 Kor, 299; DAUTZENBERG, Prophetie, 272; HAYS, 1 Cor, 247; SCHRAGE, 486–487, 490; MURPHYO’CONNOR, “1 Cor”, 811; LINDEMANN, 1 Kor, 318–319; ID., Paulus im ältesten Christentum, 25– 26, 137), or even that 1 Tim 2,9–15 could come from the circle which formulated the household codes in Eph and Col. But it is more likely that 1 Tim reflects a later, more conservative tradition (see WAGENER, Ordnung, 63). An alternative to this position is represented by BARTSCH, Anfänge, 68–70, who assumes that both texts represent cultic rules, differing insofar as 1Tim 2,9–10 expands the scope of cultic regulations to general attitude. 14 NICCUM, “Voice”, 242–255; E. MILLER, “Some Observations”, 217í236, but they often misrepresent Payne’s position. See also SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Memory, 230–233; ØKLAND, Women, 197–198, 204–208. 15 ROBERTSON, PLUMMER, 1 Cor, 324–325 (1 Cor 11,5 only hypothetical); CRAIG, SHORT, 1 Cor, 212–213; MARE, 1 Cor, 276–277. Yet a number of authors seem to be undecided: BRUCE, 1–2 Cor, 135; cf. ORR, WALTHER, 1 Cor, 313: unless Paul contradicts himself or the vv. are an interpolation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

344

Women on the public stage

limit the prohibition to the disrespectful intervention of Corinthian women during the service.16 This option is unconvincing, since speaking in public (an exercise of authority in all antiquity), prohibited here, is contrasted with silent and submissive learning in private, which is reluctantly accepted. Therefore the prohibition carries much more weight than admitted by some and as such it clearly contradicts 1 Cor 11,5 and all other texts which speak of women’s participation in mission. The most plausible explanation is that 14,34–35 is an early interpolation. However, the text could have been liable from the beginning to less restrictive interpretations. One may even assume that the author of 1 Tim has attempted to interpret this text in a restrictive and unequivocal manner, leaving no doubt about the full exclusion of women from public ministry and teaching.17 The vigour of the prohibitions in 1 Tim 2,11–12 (cf. 5,11–14) suggests that women had some active role in the church even by the time when the PE were written. It is reasonable to assume that this interdiction is not pointless, but indirectly attests to women being involved in some sort of teaching in the community, as its force would otherwise be difficult to explain.18 Nonetheless, the participation of women in ministry seems to be conceivable in certain (Pauline) communities even in the second century, well after the lifetime of Paul and after the time when the PE are written. The Acts of Paul and Thecla has Thecla instructing Tryphaena and her female servants.19 Eventually she is commissioned by Paul to teach the word of God (u[page kai. di,daske to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/).20 The conclusion of the book records the end of her life and summarises her (teaching) activity 16

SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Memory, 230–233 (a limited prohibition addressed to wives commenting in public on men’s utterances); KREMER, 1 Kor, 312 (disturbing speech); C. WOLFF, 1 Kor, 341–346; TOWNER, Letters, 215 (particular forms of speech, e.g. unrestricted interpretation of tongues or prophecy, or interaction with men). The attempt to mitigate the prohibition is unconvincing. 17 Thus ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 128–130; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 334–339. 18 H.MARSHALL, PE, 56, 455; FIORE, PE, 67 (Ephesian women), 70 (1 Tim 2 “is trying to reverse a practice common among women”). See also OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 94 (who relates women’s teaching to their belonging to a proto-Gnostic group); M. MACDONALD, Pauline Churches, 179. 19 APTh 39. 20 APTh 41. VOUAUX (Les Actes de Paul, 225/227 n. 3*) explains the commissioning as Paul’s recognition of God’s special favour, but hastens to add: “en un cas particulier et isolé; et il n’y a rien là qui puisse justifier un droit habituel des femmes à enseigner”. He adds that her ministry is directed at women. This is true for APTh 39, but there is no such limitation in Paul’s commissioning. Vouaux admits that her having enlightened many may be understood as public teaching, but that, too, seems to him to be carried out in private, and “en tout cas, jamais officiellement.” For that reason, Vouaux argues, the text does not contradict the interdiction formulated by Paul in 1 Cor 14,34. These remarks are typical for how later historical developments – here women’s exclusion from ordained ministry – are read into an early text, and contradicting texts are uncritically harmonised.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

345

by noting that she has enlightened many with the word of God (pollou.j fwti,sasa tw/| lo,gw| tou/ qeou/).21 The relationship between Paul and Thecla is presented in a quite ambivalent manner. The Iconium-episode is dominated by Paul, but he is almost absent in the Antioch-episode, which has a much more independent Thecla. In this latter narrative Paul makes contradictory decisions: he initially rejects Thecla’s wish to follow him, yet eventually authorises her to teach. The APTh may well be a composite work that has an initially independent, earlier Thecla-tradition (preserved in the Antioch-episode), which was incorporated into the Acts of Paul and completed with the Iconium-narrative.22 This redaction-critical approach has much to commend it and it shows that the redactor deliberately places Thecla in the shadow of Paul. Even on the hypothesis of a redactional re-shaping of the Theclanarrative that implies a secondary “taming” of this independent female disciple, Thecla is an altogether outstanding character in the work. Her portrayal awakens the sympathy of the reader and implicitly the approval of her teaching role. It is not without interest that in the present form of the writing Thecla’s right to participate in mission is largely due to her ascetic dedication. This detail is of some interest for interpreting the participation of (ascetic) women in teaching, an activity strongly disparaged by the PE, but probably accepted in the ascetic circles they attacked. It is clear that the APTh may not be taken as a historical account properly speaking.23 I am also sceptical about the origin and transmission of the work in female circles.24 What matters though is that a second century writing most likely coming from a Pauline community25 presents a paradig21

APTh 43. ESCH, LEINHÄUPL-WILKE, “Auf die Spur”, 30–51; ESCH-WERMELING, Thekla, esp. 71–186. 23 Even when e.g. BOUGHTON too easily dismisses its relevance (“Pious Legend”, 362í383). She claims that the popularity of the APTh “reflected the story’s appeal among uninstructed Christians who had difficulty understanding the ideas and values of apostolic writings” (363–364) and contends that as opposed to canonical writings the APTh can make no claim to origins in the apostolic times. This reading reflects a rather simplistic view of early Christianity. It disregards the fact that several canonical writings, though written in “apostolic times”, have an apostolic origin only in a broad sense at best (the PE are the best example). The derision of certain details of the APTh (364, 377, passim) reflects the misunderstanding of the meaning of the narrative and a monolithic view of early Christian thought. I have dealt elsewhere with the eschatology and asceticism of the APTh, as reflected in the details of the narrative (“Asceticism and Otherworlds”, 281–303). 24 The thesis of D. MACDONALD, Legend. 25 As suggested by the unique authority assigned to Paul, the numerous references to the Pauline mission and by the allusions and citations from authentic epistles, the PE, and Acts. On the APTh as relecture of Acts: MARGUERAT, “The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts”, 169–184; on the APTh as response to the PE: ESCH-WERMELING, Thekla, 23–67; MERZ, “Gen(de)red Power” (2012). On the relecture of Pauline texts on the example of the beatitudes: MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 326í327, 329–330; EAD., “Gen(de)red Power” (2012). 22

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

346

Women on the public stage

matic female character involved in mission,26 commissioned by Paul. The issue is not whether Thecla was the historical disciple of Paul (more than likely she was not), but that in the second century, some decades after the PE, a Pauline community still finds it natural that (ascetic) women teach. In what follows I will look at those texts in the PE that refer to roles performed by women. The fictitious setting of 2 Tim incorporates two passages which refer to women involved in the preservation of the sound doctrine either within the family (Timothy’s grandmother and mother, 1,5), or in the community (Prisca, 4,19). Both passages are partly meant to create an atmosphere of authenticity and to place the message of the epistle and of the Pastoral Corpus (concluded by 2 Timothy) in a Pauline setting. Thus, they are not interested in promoting female teaching roles, certainly not in the community. Yet, for one reason or another, the author takes up traditions where women have a role in some sort of teaching. Further, 1 Timothy reckons with female diakonoi and with widows who have a role in the community. These issues will be considered here. 4.3.2 Women in the Pastoral Epistles 4.3.2.1 Women transmitting faith in the oikos? Lois and Eunice After asserting that he worships God with a pure conscience (evn kaqara/| suneidh,sei, 2 Tim 1,3), just as his ancestors did, “Paul” recalls in 2 Tim 1,5 the sincere faith that has dwelt in Timothy’s grandmother Lois, his mother Eunice and continues to live in Timothy himself. The statements about Timothy’s genuine faith (pi,stij avnupokri,toj) and about Paul’s pure conscience (kaqara. sunei,dhsij), should be read with 1 Tim 1,5.19 in mind. According to that passage the aim and fulfilment of the instruction (paraggeli,a) – itself standing for the sound doctrine – is love from a pure heart, good conscience and genuine faith (avga,ph evk kaqara/j kardi,aj kai. suneidh,sewj avgaqh/j kai. pi,stewj avnupokri,tou).27 It is precisely this instruction and lifestyle that characterises the orthodox believers, faithful to the tradition received from Paul via his exemplary disciple, unlike the opponents (1 Tim 1,6–7.19).28 26 On the relevance of Thecla for the teaching role of second century women: ESCHWERMELING, Thekla, 14, 308. 27 Rightly OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 16, 20. 28 See also 1 Tim 4,1–2, on the opponents who have departed from faith (avposth,sontai, tinej th/j pi,stewj), heeding to deceptive spirits and demonic teaching, through the pretensions of liars (evn u`pokri,sei yeudolo,gwn), whose conscience is seared (kekausthriasme,nwn th.n ivdi,an sunei,dhsin).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

347

Timothy’s perseverance in the faith that comes down to him through Lois and Eunice may be paralleled with Paul’s continuation in worshipping God, following the example of his ancestors (w-| latreu,w avpo. progo,nwn evn kaqara/| suneidh,sei, 1,3) and strengthens thereby the idea of continuity in tradition.29 Paul is the exemplary believer and his persistence in faith and ministry aims at emphasising the importance of tradition and of stability in the church.30 Timothy’s continuation in the tradition in which his (female) ancestors believed reproduces Paul’s faithfulness. 2 Tim 1,6 clearly shows that this continuity in faith does not merely refer to Timothy’s faithfulness as an individual, but it is related to his role as successor of Paul. Given the parallels with 1 Tim 1,5.19, the reference to Timothy’s female predecessors is essentially meant to demonstrate that Timothy is firmly anchored in the true Christian tradition arching over several generations and rooted in a well-ordered family.31 The text does not explicitly say that Timothy was taught by his grandmother and mother, but that his family continued in (Christian doctrine and) tradition over three generations. Yet, in the PE continuity in tradition is achieved through the succession of persons handing it down. This is obvious in the church, but the same also holds true in the family, as shown by the example of Paul’s family, in the immediate context of 2 Tim 1,5. In the family this task was normally carried out by the father. Therefore, at first sight, it is surprising that in the case of Timothy the author asserts a “matrilineal” succession in faith. Yet, a “patrilineal” perseverance in sound doctrine could not have been stated, since according to Acts 16,1 Timothy’s father was Greek.32 It is the mother who is described as a gunh, Iv oudai,a pisth,,33 possibly a “family tradition” known to the author.34 Therefore continuity in faith could be achieved only on the maternal side. In Timothy’s life 29 WEISER, 2 Tim, 88–89. He notes, just as BROX (Past, 227), that in order to assert this continuity in tradition that in the case of Paul may be sustained only through his Jewish ancestors, the author will overlook the specific Christian element in Paul’s preaching, his break with Judaism. 30 Rightly, BROX, Past, 225, 227. 31 BROX, Past, 227; OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 22–25; FIORE, PE, 136, 140; R. COLLINS, 1 2 Tim Tit, 192. 32 BROX, Past, 226. 33 She is taken to be Jewish by ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 21, Jewish Christian by BROX, Past, 17; FIORE, PE, 135. H. MARSHALL assumes that Lois and Eunice converted to Christianity, transmitting to Timothy the Christian (not Jewish) faith (PE, 694–695). R. COLLINS thinks that Paul evangelised them (1 2 Tim Tit, 193), but this is not said here. VON LIPS argues that they were recent converts to Christianity (Timotheus, 135–136). One may wonder whether their conversion to Christianity can be taken for granted, but the answer is not directly relevant for the matter addressed here. 34 MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 302 parallels Eunice and Lois’ teaching Timothy with the tradition of Jewish women teaching the Law to their children, contributing to their perseverance (Deborah in Tob 1,8; 4 Macc 18,10ff).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

348

Women on the public stage

of faith the paternal figure is not his natural father, but Paul (1 Tim 1,2; 2 Tim 1,2).35 Since Paul’s ancestors are Jewish, and probably so were Timothy’s grandmother and mother (at least before their, or the mother’s possible conversion to Christianity), the parallel suggested to some authors an emphasis on the continuity between Jewish and Christian faith.36 Yet, the PE are much more interested in the idea of perseverance in tradition, than in asserting a religious link between Judaism and Christianity.37 The epistle emphasises here, too, the idea of continuity in faith (pi,stij), that is of faithfulness to the received tradition.38 The ideal and legitimate leader of the church, responsible for teaching and preaching, is deeply anchored in tradition.39 Timothy, just as Paul, continues in the faith he has received, a fact that increases his reliability in ministry and leadership.40 This becomes clear from the following verse, introduced with div h]n aivti,an; because of his perseverance in faith(fullness), he should kindle in himself the gift of grace received through Paul’s ordination. All the more so, as he will have to entrust the received tradition to faithful men, able to teach others (2,2). Actually 2 Tim aims at legitimating these pistoi. avnqrw,poi (the leaders of the time), and the faithfulness of “Timothy” as exemplum is an instrument of this endeavour. The idea of succession thus plays a major role, as Paul is envisaged as handing down his “sound” teaching to his follower(s). This vision of continuation in faith over several generations41 shows that Timothy’s matrilineal ancestors are significant not so much in themselves, but insofar as they stand for the idea of tradition. The historicity of these familial details cannot be verified,42 but the matter of historicity is irrelevant. The probably fictitious setting does not change the fact that the author, in order to make his point, is compelled to refer here to two women, transmitting the faith to Timothy. He thus indirectly admits – even when only for the sake of his point on perseverance in tradition – that women may have

35

R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 193. SPICQ, Épîtres II, 702; H. MARSHALL, PE, 690–691. 37 BROX, Past, 227; WEISER, 2 Tim, 90, n. 52. 38 OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 19–20; BROX, Past, 227; VON LIPS, Timotheus, 136. 39 WEISER, 2 Tim, 95–96, 98–99. 40 R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 193 (“genuine faith is an apostolic seal of approval that confirms Timothy’s authority”). 41 It may well be that this reference to Timothy’s grandmother and mother actually reflects a third generation community (OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 22–23, 25; pace H. MARSHALL, PE, 695). Nonetheless, the third generation does not need to be taken literally, as it may simply stand for continuity over generations. 42 For the use of these characters as pseudepigraphical device: OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 22–24. 36

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

349

a role in teaching Christian doctrine, at least in the family.43 This is certainly not public teaching and it does not contradict women’s prohibition to teach in 1 Tim 2,12. This makes the case of Prisca all the more interesting. 4.3.2.2 Women transmitting faith in the community. Prisca Prisca is one of the Christians greeted by “Paul” in the ending of 2 Tim (4,19–21). Many of the persons mentioned here are unknown. These names, like the other personalia in vv. 9–17, are largely meant to strengthen the feeling of authenticity and historical plausibility.44 They evoke an apostle engaged in mission, faithful to his ministry until death, who reminds Timothy (and the reader) of his dedicated collaborators and supporters. “Paul” keeps alive his relationship with his devotees even at the approach of martyrdom. The proximity of his willingly accepted death confers a special weight to these examples and greetings. The author thereby invites the members of the community to identify with these faithful companions who have kept the faith and remained loyal to Paul. They should avoid attitudes that would classify them with (the also named) opponents and deserters. The positive characters stand therefore for continuity in tradition and in mission between the time of Paul and that of the author.45 Even when the reference to various names is a pseudepigraphic device with a strategic function, remarkably, the author is again compelled to mention a woman like Prisca. Prisca’s teaching and leadership role is not stated in the epistle, an omission that is probably deliberate. However, v. 19 works as an allusion to other texts or at least traditions which speak of her prominent position in the community (Rom 16,3; cf. also 1 Cor 16,19; Acts 18,18.26). Her description as Paul’s fellow-worker (sunergo,j, Rom 16,3) was probably known to the author and possibly also her role in introducing Apollo to the Christian doctrine (Acts 18,26).46 Their portrayal as sunergo,i implies that the couple had a role in preaching the gospel.47 Interestingly, 2 Tim 4,19 preserves her precedence over Aquila, apparent in three of the six other references to her (ĺ4.3.1). 2 Timothy tells nothing about her role in the community and no doubt, she is mentioned alongside Paul’s other acquaintances (as mentioned) merely to provide this sense of authenticity and 43

MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 301. They are examples of irreproachable women, whose attitude corresponds to the ideal of regulated speech, and who follow appropriate standards of female behaviour, especially by fulfilling their role of mothers (BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 140–141). 44 OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 183–184; WEISER, 2 Tim, 320, 327–339. 45 WEISER, 2 Tim, 340. 46 FIORE adds her leadership role, together with Aquila (PE, 67). 47 OBERLINNER, 2 Tim, 183. Cf. also R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 289.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

350

Women on the public stage

continuity. Yet, allusions to traditions about Paul’s fellow-workers only make sense when readers will be able to recognise them as such and to identify those mentioned. As a result 2 Timothy incorporates a tradition about a woman who had a prominent role in the Pauline community and thus, although unintentionally and in a concealed manner, refers to a female character at odds with the ideal woman of the Pastorals: domestic, selfeffacing and disengaged from public ecclesial activities that would involve special responsibility. 4.3.2.3 Ministries of women in the Pastoral Epistles Female diakonoi The ambiguous reference to gunai/kej in the mirror of the diakonoi (1 Tim 3,11) is taken by some to refer to the wives of the male deacons,48 yet, it is far more likely that it denotes female diakonoi.49 This latter option is sustained by several arguments. The structure of the text concerning the diakonoi and the women is parallel, and the introductory w`sau,twj, strengthened by the analogous requirements in v. 8 and 11, makes sense when both verses refer to the qualities of diakonoi, particularly in a passage dealing with the qualifications of officials. There is no possessive pronoun to qualify women as wives of the diakonoi and there is no previous discussion of the qualities expected from the wife of the episkopos; hence it would make little sense to list those of the wives of diakonoi. External evidence for female diakonoi is commonly drawn from Rom 16,1 (Phoebe, the diakonos of the church at Cenchreae),50 and from Pliny’s reference to ministrae.51 Later ecclesiastic texts such as the mid-third century Didascalia and the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions, dependant on the former, leave no 48

KNIGHT, PE, 171–172 (wives and/or assistants of the deacons). For gunai/kej standing for female diakonoi: LOCK, PE, 40; SPICQ, Épîtres I, 456, 460–461; THIESSEN, Christen, 310–311; BROX, Past, 154–155; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 263; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, XXXIX, 113, 139–143 (noting that the question cannot be decided solely based on the text, but finding internal and external evidence conclusive); QUINN, WACKER, 1–2 Tim, 251, 271, 271, 279, 285–287 (women ministers); L. JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 222, 228–229 (women helpers); H. MARSHALL, PE, 493; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 86, 90–91 (women servers); TOWNER, Letters, 265–266; WITHERINGTON, Letters, 242; LOHFINK, “Weibliche Diakone”, 332–334; STIEFEL, “Women Deacons”, 442–457; WILD, “The Pastoral Letters”, 897; R. BROWN, “Early Church”, 1345; MONTAGUE, 1–2 Tim, Tit, 82; GOURGUES, Lettres, 129–131; WAGNER, Anfänge, 167; hesitantly KELLY, PE, 83–84; GUTHRIE, PE, 97; FIORE, PE, 81. Diakonoi is translated as deacons, ministers, helpers or servants. 50 Phoebe has been discussed earlier. Early Christian authors like Origen and Chrysostom also understood Rom 16,1 to refer to a female deacon. See MADIGAN, OSIEK, Ordained Women, 13–15. 51 Plin., Ep. 10.96–97. 49

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

351

room for doubt that a ministry of female diakonoi existed in the early church,52 and their allusions to 1 Tim 3 show that this office was seen to be rooted in this particular text. Early Christian authors explicitly take 1 Tim 3,11 to refer to female diakonoi.53 A large amount of epigraphic evidence from the East (and to a lesser degree from the West) up to the seventh century, completed by canon law prescriptions and prohibitions (up to the fourteenth century in the East; to the eleventh century in the West), which directly or indirectly attest to the ordination of female deacons.54 Oberlinner suggests that the author is compelled to mention the female diakonoi in the catalogue of ministers, as this ministry already exists in his time, but this brief, ambiguous reference to them, in the broader context of women being silenced, indicates that he wishes to place them in the shadow of their male fellows.55 Thus the vague gunai/kej is probably used on purpose. The existence of female diakonoi leads to the question about their possible role, more specifically about their potential involvement in teaching. Some commentators downplay the tension with women’s ban from teaching (2,11–12). Quinn and Wacker supposed that female diakonoi were unmarried, whereas the prohibition to teach in 1 Tim 2,12 refers to married women; consequently there is no contradiction between the two passages.56 Yet, neither of the two suppositions can be verified. Others assert that female diakonoi certainly did not teach,57 or that diakonoi, whatever their gender, did not teach.58 This may be true, but is impossible to know. The fact is that nothing is said about the roles of diakonoi. While it is hazardous to bring in Acts in the attempt to define the tasks of diakonoi, as the book does not provide unquestionable historical information (and even if it did, geographic and temporal variations could exist), a comparison may still be of interest. Acts 6,2–6 does not use the term diakonos for the seven men 52 Did. 2.26.6; 3.12.2–4; 8.19.1–2; 8.28.6–8 (diaconissa); AC 2.26.3 (ai` dia,konoi); 3.11.3 (diakoni,ssa), 3.16.2, 4 (h` dia,konoj); 8.13.14 (ai` dia,konai); 8,19.1–2 and 8.28.6–8 (diakoni,ssa), with the alternative use of gunh, in AC 3.19.20 (ed. VON FUNK). For a detailed discussion of the issue of female deacons in the early church: MADIGAN, OSIEK, Ordained Women, 11–162. 53 Chrysost., Hom. 11 in 1 Tim, PG 62,553; Theod. Mops., In ep. ad Timotheum I, ed. SWETE, 2.128–129; Theod. Cyr., Interpr. Ep. I ad Tim. III, PG 82, 809. MADIGAN, OSIEK, Ordained Women, 19–24; BOLFĂ-OTIC, “Diaconesele”, 23–40. 54 EISEN, Women Officeholders, 158–185; MADIGAN, OSIEK, Ordained Women, 67–105 (Eastern inscriptions), 143–145 (Western inscriptions), 106–132 (Eastern canons and comments on church practice), 133–140 (later texts bearing on earlier practice), 145–149 (Western canons and comments on church practice). See also G. HORSLEY, “Sophia”, 239–244. 55 1 Tim, 141–142. 56 QUINN, WACKER, 1–2 Tim, 285–286. 57 L. JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 229; FIORE, PE, 81. 58 STIEFEL, “Women Deacons”, 456 (exclusively the task of the episkopos); FIORE, PE, 81; WAGNER, Anfänge,168.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

352

Women on the public stage

appointed to “minister at table”, traditionally regarded as deacons. Yet, it is not without interest that persons arguably appointed to such ministry do preach (7; 8,5.35) and baptise (8,12.38). If for nothing else, the narratives in Acts are helpful in that they show the variety of tasks possibly pertaining to a ministry. Further, Paul commonly describes his ministry, centred on announcing the gospel, as diakonia and those persons carrying out this ministry as diakonoi (Rom 11,13; 1 Cor 3,5; 2 Cor 3,6; 6,4).59 Therefore one may not argue with certainty that (female) diakonoi did teach, but one cannot exclude the possibility, either. Whereas nothing is said about the duties of male and female diakonoi, the moral requirements outline the character of an irreproachable official. Male and female diakonoi are demanded to be serious, worthy of honour, dignified (semnou,j) and their speech should be proper (mh. dilo,gouj for men, mh. diabo,louj for women). It is difficult to tell whether the demands concerning speech are gender-specific. It has been suggested that diabo,loj here would mean gossiper and would allude to the cliché according to which women are by nature gossipers.60 Yet, this is far from certain. It is true that Tit 2,3 also guards (older) women from being diabo,louj, but in 2 Tim 3,3 the adjective refers to false teachers and 1 Tim 3,6 may have in view a non-Christian slanderer. Thus, “slanderer” seems a more appropriate translation.61 Male and female diakonoi are expected to be sober. Men are explicitly demanded to show moderation with respect to drinking, yet, this is hardly a specifically male requisite (Tit 2,3 demands the same from older women). Nhfali,ouj in women more than likely means (first of all) the same sort of sobriety.62 Only the rejection of shameful gain is omitted from the qualifications of women. The Christian element of these expectations is somewhat differently formulated, yet certainly synonymous63 – men should hold to the mystery of faith with a pure conscience (e;contaj to. musth,rion th/j pi,stewj evn kaqara/| suneidh,sei, v. 9), whereas women are demanded to be faithful in everything (pista.j evn pa/sin, v. 11). This implies that both have to abide by the true doctrine and to honour ethical requirements. The list of qualifications is more than likely traditional, regulating an already established ministry. This may also explain why the author does not need to discuss their attributions (just as in the case of the episkopos). 59

MERZ, “Phoebe”, 127. BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 135–137. 61 LSJ s.v.; BDAG s.v. 62 Rightly, STIEFEL, “Women Deacons”, 444; pace BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 135. Selfcontrol may have gender-specific aspects, yet Tit 2,3 shows that addiction to wine was (seen to be) a problem in women, as well. Therefore one need not take nhfali,oj here to refer to chastity. 63 STIEFEL, “Women Deacons”, 444. 60

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

353

Widows 1 Tim 5,3–16, though entirely concerned with widows, is not homogeneous. While v. 4 and 8 most likely state the obligation of the family to provide for the widows, vv. 5–7 address the qualities to be displayed by a worthy widow. A significant shift occurs with vv. 9–10, which define the qualifications demanded from widows to be enrolled (katale,gw).64 The status and role of the widows addressed in 1 Tim 5,3–16 is variously interpreted. Some commentators argue that the text refers to widows merely as a destitute category and, as a result, as recipients of charity.65 Yet, the requirements concerning enrolment make much more sense when they are understood to regulate the admission to a community of widows dedicated to Christ, living in celibacy and ministering to the needy (vv. 9–15). Widows are not merely beneficiaries of financial aid (v. 16), but also active members of the ekklƝsia, belonging to a group with a particular profile; they are a community, if not an order of widows, with specific roles in the service of the church.66 (It is noteworthy that later on the Didascalia and the 64

ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 284–285, 293; FIORE, PE, 104–105. H. MARSHALL, PE, 576–579, 592–594; KNIGHT, PE, 215, yet noting that the enrolled widow is set apart, expected to remain unmarried and she is assigned certain tasks (222); L. JOHNSON, 1–2 Tim, 271–275; TOWNER, Letters, 334, 338, 345–346. Marshall and Towner dismiss the official recognition of “working” widows, based, among others, on the assumption that widows over 60 were unlikely to be able to provide services to the community, and regard the whole passage as referring to candidates for church aid. (Yet Marshall admits that some additional service may be in view.) The difficulty with this explanation is that widows over forty up to 59, potentially unable to remarry and to have children, would be excluded from financial aid, being also deprived from family support. Marshall’s “commonsensical” argument from the elevated age making service unlikely does not take into account that age limitation actually aims at restricting the access to an already existing group with which the author is uncomfortable (cf. OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 246–247). Moreover, such an extensive list of qualifications, (parallel to those of the officeholders in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1), and the need to scrutinise these widows would be rather harsh preconditions for receiving the support due to the destitute. The criterion of accomplished motherhood (5,10) set for the enrolment also contradicts the hypothesis according to which widows would be mere candidates for church aid, since in this case they would expectedly have children to provide for their care (cf. 5,4.8). 66 DIBELIUS, Past, 58 (“,Witwe‘ im technischen Sinn… Amtsbezeichnung für die ,Gemeindewitwen‘”); cf. DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 74 (an office), 76 (a widow qualified for congregational service); JEREMIAS, Tim Tit, 61 (widows actively engaged in the Church, “Witwenamt”), BROX, Past, 185; cautiously TRUMMER, Paulustradition, 217–219. WAGENER speaks of a remunerated office (Ordnung, 148–149). Of a “Witwenstand” speak ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 292–293; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 221–222, 231, 233–234 (not an office, but a group with a certain profile and particular tasks, mainly in the field of charity, serving the community that provides for their support). See also SPICQ, Épîtres I, 532–533 (“une sorte d’ordo viduarum”); QUINN, WACKER, 1–2 Tim, 418–419; VERNER, Household, 163–165 (an office of widows); KIDD, Wealth, 104–105; TREBILCO, Early Christians, 523–527; FIORE, PE, 102, 104–107 (“a special ministerial group in the community”); HULTGREN, Normative Christianity, 70; BJELLAND KARTZOW, Gossip, 143–144 (“office of widows”, “widows’ order”). To be sure, the reception history of this text points in that direction: Pol. 4.3 (widows as the altar of God); Ign., Smyrn. 13.1 (the virgins called 65

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

354

Women on the public stage

Apostolic Constitutions prohibit widows to teach, a prohibition which makes sense when widows were actually still teaching.67 In the following sentence they are dissuaded from leaving their house, a clear allusion to 1 Tim 5,13.) Moreover, not all widows are destitute, as suggested by 5,6 (ĺ4.3.3.1). Widows do not seem to carry out a leadership role, but the regulations point nevertheless to a prominent group in the church. The passage does not envisage widows merely as a destitute social layer, but reflects traditions about widowed women dedicating their life to God, after a faithful marriage to their only husband. Relentless prayer (1 Tim 5,5) is an eminent expression of this commitment. Judith and Hanna are types of such dedicated widows;68 they both minister to God night and day and both are univirae (Jdt 8,4–8; 11,17; 16,22; Luke 2,36–37). The modelling of the ideal widow after the same pattern shows that the widows addressed in 1 Tim 5,5–10 are not simply the object of church charity. They are deserving women dedicated to prayer and community service. As commonly noted, the passage intends to regulate an existing establishment and not to introduce a new ministry.69 Literary critical approaches also show that the author takes over and modifies existing regulations concerning widows.70 The novelty of these regulations consists in the insistence on the exclusive role of the leader in accepting or rejecting candidates for this ministry, in regulating the behaviour of widows,71 as well as in the restrictive character of these rules.72

widows); DA 3.1.1–2; AC 3.1.1–2. On early Christian epigraphic and literary evidence for enrolled widows: EISEN, Women Officeholders, 143–157; also G. HORSLEY, “Maria”, 193–195 (the epitaph of a female diakonos [6th cent. Archelaïs, Cappadocia], paraphrasing 1 Tim 5,10: “in accordance with the statement of the apostle reared children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, distributed her bread to the afflicted”). 67 DA 3.6.1–2, AC 3.6.1–2. 68 For the verbal and thematic parallels: WAGENER, Ordnung, 132–135, 141–143; on Hanna: also ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 286. 69 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 283–285; BASSLER, “Widow’s Tale”, 34; H. MARSHALL, PE, 592 (although he takes the enrolment to refer to those entitled to financial aid). 70 WAGENER divides the passage into two units (vv. 3–8 and 9–16), taking vv. 3.5, and 9.11– 12, respectively, for traditional (Ordnung, 126–127). ROLOFF regards vv. 3, 9–10 and possibly 16 traditional (1 Tim, 284). In my view, the age limit of sixty (v. 9) as well as the dismissal of younger widows (v. 11) stem from the author, whereas part of the criteria for eligibility in v. 10, especially those concerning a dedicated life, may also be traditional. Whether an age limit was already set in an existing qualification list, is impossible to tell. If it was, it was most likely lower, since most ancient sources that set an age limit for women in various contexts establish an age of 40 or 50. I will return to the matter in what follows. 71 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 244 (the placet of the leader is decisive for the enrolment or rejection of widows, thus eventually enrolment depends on his authority). 72 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 285.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

355

Very often the discussion of the entire passage is dominated by the topic of financial aid to be provided by the church. Although v. 16 is the only one which unequivocally refers to the matter, this issue determines the way in which all qualifications in the list are read. As the matter has been addressed in the chapter on honourable behaviour (ĺ2.5.4), the financial aspect will not be rehearsed here in detail. It is enough to recall that the family and better-off female members (the pi,sth,73 v. 16) are required to take care of the destitute widows. Eventually, in their absence, the church has to provide for their subsistence (v. 16). Community widows or “working widows” may also receive honorary allotments, expressing the respect they deserve (v. 3). A more interesting matter is the subject of manqane,twsan prw/ton to.n i;dion oi=kon euvsebei/n in v. 4. The most common reading takes the verse to refer to the children and grandchildren of widows, who should support their widowed (grand)mother.74 Yet, some would argue that the widows are those who are expected to learn to show piety toward their own oikos, by performing their traditional duties in the household.75 This interpretation is congruous with vv. 13–14, which condemn younger widows for learning to be idle (avrgai. manqa,nousin perierco,menai ta.j oivki,aj( […] flu,aroi kai. peri,ergoi) and instead demand that they marry and run their household (gamei/n( teknogonei/n( oivkodespotei/n). This explanation is attractive, since such a reading would provide more unity to the passage and it would be consistent with the author’s views on female roles. If correct, the entire passage (and not only its second part) would aim to restrict the public presence of widows and to limit them to traditional household duties. Yet, this interpretation has its own difficulties. The shift from the singular ch,ra to the plural manqane,twsan is not a major problem, as it could be understood as a generalisation, yet the plural of the verb makes more sense with te,kna as its subject. It is more difficult to explain why a widow’s care for her own household should imply that she gives a return or a recompense to her parents or ancestors (avmoiba.j avpodido,nai toi/j progo,noij). Piety towards one’s ancestors was certainly valued in Greco-Roman antiquity. 73

The reading is well attested (ʠ A C F G P 048 33 etc.), against the v.l. pisto,j ( D Ȍ M). SPICQ, Épîtres I, 526–528 (and the extensive discussion of the cultural background, emphasising the obligation of children to show piety towards their parents, and to take care of their material needs); DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 74; BROX, Past, 188; OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 225; H. MARSHALL, PE, 583–585; KNIGHT, PE, 220; TOWNER, Letters, 339–340. Dealing with the motif of pro,noia in 1 Tim 5,8, HARRISON takes it to express the relations of reciprocity between widows and kins/community, understood as a parent/benefactor–child/client relationship (“Benefaction Ideology”, 114–115). He takes the children as subject of avmoiba.j avpodido,nai and pronoei/n (vv. 4.8); they reciprocate parental munificence. 75 WAGENER, Ordnung, 149–154; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 287–288; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 286. 74

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

356

Women on the public stage

Yet, the clause makes more sense in the context if it is taken to refer to the children – by providing for their destitute widowed mother, they would actually give her a return on the care they have received earlier in their life. This interpretation may be supported by v. 16, which shows that the author regards material support for widows as a burden for the church and looks for alternatives. Relatives would be the best candidates. The fact remains that the enrolment of widows requires specific qualifycations, some of which are comparable with those demanded from officials.76 Widows have to have proved themselves through an exemplary marital life (e`no.j avndro.j gunh,, v. 9; cf. the analogous mia/j gunaiko.j avnh,r for the episkopos and the diakonos, Tit 1,6; 1 Tim 3,2.12), in hospitality (xenodoce,w, v. 10, cf. filo,xenoj of the overseer-presbyter in Tit 1,8 and 1 Tim 3,2) and they are to be above reproach (avnepi,lhmptoi, v. 7, cf. 1 Tim 3,2 and 10, or avne,gklhtoj, Tit 1,7).77 Other qualifications, like that of child rearing (v. 10) are typical for women, and again, others are more common in women dedicated to the service of the needy (washing the feet of the saints, helping those in distress). Good works are not specific, as they are equally demanded from godly women (1 Tim 2,10), from the wealthy (1 Tim 6,18), from Timothy (2 Tim 2,21; 3,17), Titus (Tit 2,7) and from all Christians (Tit 2,14; 3,1.8). Katale,gw is often used in a technical sense, for the enrolment of individuals in a specific group.78 A missing qualification is that of being destitute, another indicator that enrolment is not about financial support.79 Enrolled widows appear to have made vows of celibacy leading to a lifelong commitment to Christ, understood as spiritual marriage (vv. 11–12).80 The marital ideal of e`no.j avndro.j gunh, is understood to refer either to a widow who has not remarried after her husband’s death81 (and a fortiori to 76

FIORE, PE, 105. I take avnepi,lhmptoi to refer to widows, not their children (ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 291; pace H. MARSHALL, PE, 589). 78 LSJ s.v. lists 1 Tim 5,9 under the meaning “reckon, count as”, but also mentions as possible meanings “to enumerate, draw up a list”, “enrol, enlist” (e.g. soldiers: Ar., Ach. 1065; Lys. 394; Lys. 15.7); members of the senate (Plut., Pomp. 13.7); cf. also BDAG s.v., adding P.Oxy. 416.4 for enrolment into religious bodies (of later date though, 3rd–4th cent. CE). See also ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 293, n. 348; H. MARSHALL, PE, 591, n. 54. 79 Rightly ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 293. 80 For this understanding of vv. 11–12 see STÄHLIN, ch,ra, 454; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 296–297 (rightly taking pi,stij for faithfulness, noth faith); OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 237–238; FIORE, PE, 106. See also DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 75 (pi,stij as agreement, and the ideal of chaste widows); FIORE, 105–106. This appears to be the understanding of the early church; e.g. AC 3.1.1–2. I see no evidence in the text for the author envisaging a widow’s marriage to a non-believer (pace H. MARSHALL, PE, 600–601; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 141–142). 81 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 533; VERNER, Household, 130–131; M. MACDONALD, Pauline Churches, 211 (who have been married only once); ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 294; see also KÖTTING, Wiederverheiratung, 22–24. BROX also tends toward this interpretation, speaking of an ideal set for 77

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

357

women who did not remarry after divorce82), or merely to marital faithfulness that does not imply the interdiction of a second marriage after the death of the husband.83 In view of the traditional character of the list of qualifications and given the ascetic tendencies animating some members in the community (probably inspired by Paul’s exhortation to widows, 1 Cor 7,8.40), it seems more likely that the requirement refers to abstaining from remarriage.84 The prohibition of polyandry85 has little support, as the cultural context made polyandry inconceivable.86 Based on later sources some argue that ch,ra could include unmarried virgins,87 but this is difficult to prove for the PE. The requirement comes close to the Roman ideal of the univira, embodying female chastity, faithfulness, dedication and even religious piety.88 Lightman and Zeisel have shown that the originally prescriptive, religious, elite paradigm of the early Republic became a descriptive, non-religious virtue with a downward social diffusion, from the imperial period on. Thus at early stages being an univira was a requirement concerning a living, elite woman with a living husband, often serving in a religious position like that of the flaminica Dialis. Later on, they argue that the term became one of the common attributes of any chaste and faithful (not necessarily elite) wife who predeceased her husband, as attested by funerary inscriptions.89 In addition, Lightman and Zeisel assert, Christianity reassessed the value of female widowhood, assigning religious significance to an unfortunate candidates for this “geheiligte Stand” (Past, 192). On the ideal of a sole marriage as background for the requirement see also FIORE, PE, 104, referring to Propert. 4.11.33–37,41–42,67–69 (Cornelia and her daughter); Liv. 10.23.5.9; Val. Max. 2.1.3 (praise of women satisfied with one marriage), Paus., Descr. 2.21.7 (Gorgophone as the first woman of Argos to have remarried after the death of her husband; earlier wives were expected to remain widows, chreu,ein); 7.25.13 (a priestess of an Achaian sanctuary of Earth, who has had intercourse with only one man, e`no.j avndro.j); hesitantly R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 140. 82 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 293–294 (a possibility); R. COLLINS , 1–2 Tim Tit, 139. 83 DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, PE, 75; H. MARSHALL, PE, 594. 84 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 294. All the more so as marital expectations were stricter with respect to women (Roloff, here, and KÖTTING, Wiederverheiratung, throughout). VERNER defends the same meaning for the requirement of mia/j gunaiko.j avnh,r and e`no.j avndro.j gunh,, namely to have been married only once (Household, 130–131). 85 WEIDINGER, Haustafeln, 68–69. OEPKE thinks of successive polyandria after divorce(s) (gunh,, 789). 86 Rightly, WAGENER, Ordnung, 174. 87 BASSLER, “Widow’s Tale”, 35; METHUEN, “Virgin Widow”, 285–298 (cf. Ign., Smyrn. 13; Tert., Virg. vel. 9.2–3). 88 FREY, “Signification”, 48–60; LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL, “Univira”, 19–32; KÖTTING, Wiederverheiratung; on dedicated widows and censure of those betraying the memory of their husband see also WALCOT, “Widows”, 5–26. 89 Beside epitaphs, Propertius’ Cornelia (4.11, “uni nupta fuisse”), evoked by CLARK, “Roman Women”, 210; FIORE, PE, 104.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

358

Women on the public stage

condition: dedicated widowhood became an expression of sexual purity and piety, of a woman’s devotion to the memory of her husband and to the welfare of her children.90 The analysis has much to commend it, not least because it shows the religious implications of the ideal of univira, an ideal that implies the valuation of lifelong chastity. One may doubt, however, that in Greco-Roman culture widowhood was seen merely as a lessening of a woman’s status.91 A number of sources praise women who, after having outlived their husband, remained faithful to his memory and dedicated their life to their children.92 Further, the occurrence of the epithet in epitaphs, as a quality of women that predeceased their husband, does not mean that widows could not be described or regarded as univirae.93 The special status of the univira in Roman and, to some degree, in Greek religion is also significant, as certain rites could be performed only by women who married only once.94 Given the moral and religious value attributed to the condition of univira, it is not extraordinary that such a quality is expected from enrolled widows dedicated to Christ, in a prescriptive text like 1 Tim 5,9.95 90

LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL, “Univira”, 27. LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL, “Univira”, 27. 92 Such is Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, who in her widowhood had turned down a royal pretendent (Plut., Ti. Gracch. 1.4; see HEMELRIJK, Matrona docta, 64), and Antonia, widow of Drusus Germanicus, who chose to live with her mother-in-law after her husband’s death (Val. Max. 4.3.3). Such appears to be Helvia, Seneca’s aunt (Helv. 19,4), and perhaps his mother, who dedicated herself to the welfare of her children (Helv. 14.3). These widows are not explicitly called univirae in these sources, but that is what they are. The quotes from Seneca’s De matrimonio, preserved in Jerome’s Adv. Jovin., cited by LIGHTMAN, ZEISEL (“Univira”, 31), are not as ambiguous as the authors claim. Being content with one marriage (uno contentae matrimonio) is a sign of chastity in women, argues Valerius Maximus (2.1.3). In the context, the passage probably refers to abstaining from divorce and remarriage, yet the main idea is fidelity to one’s first and only husband. Examples of husbands faithful to their only wife are much rarer. Beside Drusus, mentioned above, his son, Germanicus died “content with a single wife and the children of lawful wedlock” (Tac., Ann. 2.73.3). Much earlier G. Laelius, a friend of Scipio Africanus is said to have known only one woman, “the wife of his youth” (Plut., Cato Min. 7.3). Statius writes about his father that he has known only one marriage, only one love (“una tibi cognita taeda conubia, unus amor”, Silv. 5.3.240–241, transl. Mozley). See also TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 235. 93 Pace WAGENER, Ordnung, 175. See also TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 233–236. The smaller number of epitaphs commemorating widows as univirae is largely due to the fact that their husband predeceased them, and children were probably less interested in commemorating their mother as an univira. 94 KÖTTING, Wiederverheiratung, 9–10; SCHULTZ, “Sanctissima femina”, 9 – the cult of Pudicitia, Fortuna Muliebris, Mater Matuta in Rome, an Achaian cult recorded in Paus. 7.25.13. Schultz also suggests that priestesses of Ceres may have been widows, older women, or unmarried, in view of the sexual continence demanded from them (pp. 17–18). Yet, this seems more difficult to prove. Alleia Decimilla clearly was married, and there is no evidence for her having fulfilled the priesthood only after the death of her husband. 95 The question raised by WAGENER, about whether the requirement has a pro-marital or an ascetic background, is an interesting one (Ordnung, 174–177). No doubt, the ideal of the univira 91

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

359

Some of the requirements for enrolling widows are conflicting. (1) 1 Tim 5,10.14 (just as 1 Tim 2,15 and Tit 2,4) convey the opinion that motherhood is a woman’s eminent role. This is all the more true as motherhood is taken as women’s ultimate way to salvation (2,15; ĺ3.6.1). The problem arises when vv. 9, 10 and 14 are read jointly. On the one hand, a widow is expected to have raised/nurtured children (i.e. to have already fulfilled her maternal role) in order to qualify for the enrolment (v. 10).96 This would suggest that such a widow, by having accomplished her eminent female role, would become eligible for this sort of ministry in the church. Yet, remarkably, the criterion of age (v. 9) is made to play a more important role when compared to all other criteria, comprising motherhood and morality. Widows younger than sixty should be dismissed, even when they have already completed their maternal duty and have also satisfied all the other conditions, including an exemplary marital life and a devoted ministry to the needy. This questions the view that the passage would merely refer to the financial support to be offered by the church to widows, as the lack of the required age would disqualify even the entirely destitute from such aid.97 The criterion of age strengthens the impression that the author is first and foremost concerned with limiting as much as possible the size of the community of widows and implicitly the role they may have in the church.98 No doubt, an age limit for qualifying for an office was wellknown in antiquity, but the one set here is rather high in women, all the more so if one thinks how low life expectancy was. This age corresponds only to what Plato establishes as an age limit for priestesses.99 Although it expresses valuation of, not disregard for marriage. This does not prove however that e`no.j avndro.j gunh, has to come from the author, correcting an ascetic tendency (pace WAGENER, 176–177). As often noted, already in Roman culture the univira was rather the exception (though valued and idealised), whereas remarriage was the rule (TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 235). Therefore the ideal itself already comprises a restriction of (subsequent) marital relations. Moreover, the ideal of remaining a univira is not about the positive or negative character of marriage as such, but about containing women’s sexual activity. What comes from the author and actually challenges the ideal of the univira is the imposition of remarriage on younger widows. 96 I take evteknotro,fhsen to refer first of all to raising one’s own children, and only secondarily to other children (ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 295; WAGENER, Ordnung, 186; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 140; BROX, Past, 192, and OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 234 extend it to orphans, as well). DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN (PE, 75) and H. MARSHALL (PE, 595) prefer the second option. The objection of Marshall that widows who had children of their own were not supposed to be enrolled works only on his hypothesis that enrolment referred to financial aid, and, here too, only if one does not consider that children often predeceased their parents. 97 Rightly BASSLER, “Widows’ Tale”, 34. 98 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 231, 236, 244–247. 99 The nomofu,lakej should be over fifty, and keep office until seventy (Pl., Leg. 6, 755A); similarly the supreme supervisor of education (o` th.j paidei/aj evpimelhth,j) (765D), and the supervisor of the other magistrates (946A) should be no less than fifty. Male and female priesthood may

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

360

Women on the public stage

may seem implausible, the age of sixty may be the very extreme upper limit of the reproductive period in women, as attested by Soranus and the authors he quotes.100 This perception may explain to a certain extent the fear that younger widows (i.e. still of marriageable age) would desire to marry and thereby break their commitment to Christ (vv. 11–12). Yet, the age of sixty is so high that it only shows the author’s desire to restrict access to the community of widows.101 If the author had found a traditional age limit in his source, this was more likely lower. For example, Augustan legal regulations concerning women’s duty to marry and bear children set this age limit at fifty, the commonly established end of the reproductive period. If this applies, then it was the author who raised the limit to sixty.102 (2) The requirement that the eligible widow be e`no.j avndro.j gunh, (1 Tim 5,9), probably traditional, is difficult to harmonise with the author’s demand that younger widows remarry (v. 14). A younger widow who remarries will no longer be a e`no.j avndro.j gunh, in the case of a subsequent widowhood and will be disqualified, even when over sixty and when she has fulfilled all other requirements.103 Moreover, as Roloff remarks, the author thereby explicitly contradicts Paul’s demand in 1 Cor 7,8.40 that widows remain unmarried, although he must have been aware of Paul’s preference and of the role his paraenesis had in forming the community widows.104 Whereas much is said about the qualifications demanded from widows, little is known of their duties and activities in the community. Moreover, it is be filled from sixty (759 D). The age for holding offices (avrca,j) should be forty in women, thirty in men; military service should be carried out by women after finishing with childbearing, up to the age of fifty (785B). Age limit is also an issue in other legal contexts. A woman may bear witness in court when she is over forty (937A), and may receive physical punishment (e.g. for neglecting her parents), when she is below this age (932C). In men this age limit is thirty. 100 From Leg. 785B it appears that the upper limit of the procreative period in women coincided with the lower age limit for holding an office, and was set at forty. Augustan legislation set the upper limit for marriage with the purpose of procreation at fifty in women, which means that in Rome women were perceived as being of reproductive age up to fifty. This obviously corresponded with the age of the menopause, which according to Greek and Roman medical sources varied between thirty-five and fifty, however, in extreme cases was said to occur at sixty. Sixty appears as the possible age of menopause in some women according to the first/second century Ephesian Soranus (Gyn. 1.20.2 [Engl. 1.4.20; Soranus’ Gynecology, ed. Temkin]; he also refers to the similar opinion of Dyokles of Karystos); see AMUNDSEN, DIERS, “Age”, 82, 84, also quoting later authors like the fourth century Oribasius and the sixth century Aëtius). For a discussion of the legal and medical aspects of women’s age see also PARKIN, Old Age, 193–198. 101 This does not necessarily imply that the community had indeed reached an unacceptable size that demanded restrictive regulations; pace BASSLER, “Widow’s Tale”, 34–35, 37. 102 WAGENER, Ordnung, 172. 103 VERNER, Household, 131; BASSLER, “Widow’s Tale”, 34. 104 1 Tim, 299. His argument that the author counters a world-rejecting interpretation of Paul fails to convince, as there is nothing in the text to indicate such a negative attitude among widows.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

361

striking that while the list of qualifications sets an ideal image of the widow, the activities of real widows in the community are described in entirely negative terms.105 They are said to be idle, to go about from house to house, speaking what they ought not (v. 13) and some have even turned to Satan (v. 15; ĺ3.3.2). This polemic representation of what younger widows do in the community may provide some indirect evidence for pastoral house calls and possibly their involvment in teaching.106 What seems to disturb the author most is that widows escape official control.107 Through the fictitious exhortation of “Paul” to “Timothy”, the author enjoins leaders to check the community of widows, taking into their hands the admission or rejection of candidates.108 Therefore it may be inferred with good reason that by the time when the epistle is written widows have become a significant group in the church. Due to their contacts with members of the community during their house calls, as a respected and dedicated stand, they exert certain influence in the ekklƝsia. This is precisely the influence that the PE wish to counter. 4.3.2.4 Summary The ecclesial regulations concerning women wish to alter contemporary practices. They have a prescriptive character, imposing cultural standards which exclude women from the public sphere. The Pastorals thereby depart from the practice known from the genuine epistles of Paul, pushing women to the rear lines.109 Yet, for one reason or another, the author has to take for granted traditions which relate that women transmitted Christian faith in the family (Lois and Eunice) and in the community (Prisca). These passages incorporate traditions about women teaching and transmitting faith to men. In different ways though, both the prohibitions imposed on women and the passages alluding to women teaching and transmitting faith indicate that women do participate in ministry. Against an ideology of exclusion, reality implies an ongoing involvement in ecclesial tasks. The author explicitly mentions certain female ministries that still exist in his time. Yet, these are either referred to in an ambiguous manner (the female diakonoi) or described in derogatory terms (the service of dedicated widows). The sheer space devoted to limiting the size of the community of

105

OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 241. OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 239, 245–246 (I do not think that this should be connected with the Gnosis). 107 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 241. 108 GLANCY, “Protocols”, 254. 109 FIORE, PE, 66. 106

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

362

Women on the public stage

widows and their attributions suggests that these women had a significant influence. These ministries continue in one way or another women’s involvement in a variety of tasks in the lifetime of Paul. Paul’s recognition of female coworkers was probably an important incentive for the ongoing involvement of women in ministry. Here, however, the authority of Paul will be used to limit as much as possible their participation in the life of the ekklƝsia. Whether the early recognition of women was enhanced by the perception that baptism relativised inequalities based on gender and social status is difficult to tell. The sociocultural context, notably the public presence of women on the public stage in the urban societies of Asia Minor, as well as in voluntary associations may have also facilitated this practice. Some passages seem to suggest that wealth may have also endorsed the participation of women in ecclesial life. As shown earlier (ĺ4.2.2–3), in contemporary society wealth significantly augmented social visibility and was an important source of authority. For this reason I will look into two passages from 1 Timothy that discourage women’s display of wealth and lavish lifestyle. I will argue that because of their context they may indirectly reflect the undesired influence of better-off female members of the community. 4.3.3 Wealth, authority and gender Financial means provided no little influence in society, all the more so when connected with euergetism. The epigraphic evidence for women benefactors points to the connection between female wealth and authority (ĺ4.2.2–3). It is more than likely that similar tendencies were discernible in the ekklƝsia, even when the economic status of Christians was rather modest. Even so, the better-off, especially when providing financial support to relieve various needs (like the support of destitute widows), were obviously expecting to have a say in the community according to the logic of patronage and beneficence. Benefactors required in return deference and the acknowledgement of authority. Two texts in 1 Timothy, 2,9–10 and 5,6 suggest that better-off women acquired certain prominence in the community (disturbing to our author’s mind), not least because of their relative affluence. This may be surmised even when these women belonged at best to middling groups and their influence had a much more modest scope compared to that of elite women in society. I shall argue that (a) given the context that aims at keeping women in their place and (b) in view of the cultural background, the censure of women’s display of wealth (2,9–10) and the warning against luxurious lifestyle (5,6) does not merely promote sobriety, but attempts to limit the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

363

influence exerted by these women. This argument is substantiated by the constant association of (display of) wealth with status and power in a wide range of ancient sources. Moral philosophy cautions against women’s display of wealth providing them with unwanted influence. Sumptuary laws attempt to curb this phenomenon. Obviously, texts belonging to different genres did not have the same impact. From this perspective the significance of hortatory passages is quite different from that of legal provisions. It is not my intention, however, to establish a literary dependence of the PE on these texts. This discussion explores topoi ascertaining a link between women’s (display of) wealth, luxurious lifestyle and undesired authority. These motifs pervade ancient sources, regardless of the geographic, temporal or literary setting and are reflected in 1 Timothy as well. No doubt, female adornment and affluence are complex matters and related conventions express a number of issues, like attitudes toward luxury, concern with morality, or different ideals of beauty. These aspects will not be addressed here. I will focus only on the connection between (display of) wealth and authority in 1 Timothy and in ancient sources. I argue that analogously to elite women in society, Christian women of some means could acquire certain authority in the community. 4.3.3.1 The authority of better-off women 1 Tim 2,9b–10 1 Tim 2,9–10 envisages women of some means who display their wealth. Although the exhortation has much of the character of a topos, it reflects the apprehension that wealth results in more or less formal authority. Women are urged to adorn themselves in keeping with modesty and temperance (meta. aivdou/j kai. swfrosu,nhj), with good deeds (diV e;rgwn avgaqw/n), instead of braided hair, gold and pearls or expensive clothes (mh. evn ple,gmasin kai. crusi,w| h' margari,taij h' i`matismw/| polutelei/). This paraenesis is immediately followed by the imposition of silence and subordination – women are excluded from teaching and authority (vv. 11–12). The connection between wealth and authority is thus strengthened by the immediate context in which women are barred from ecclesial roles entailing authority in the community. It seems likely that these restrictions targeted chiefly the (relatively) prominent women.110

110 SPICQ, Épîtres I, 292, n. 3, 419–420, 423–425; VERNER, Household, 171, 180; KIDD, Wealth, 102–103; TOWNER, Letters, 200, 219 (I do not follow his association of well-off women with “sexual revolution” and immorality, promoted by the model of the “new Roman woman”, nor their involvement in heresy); TREBILCO, Early Christians, 520.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

364

Women on the public stage

The paraenesis on modest adornment has sometimes been thought to reflect (Ephesian) women’s excessive preoccupation with outward appearance to the point of suggesting a promiscuous lifestyle,111 and as an attempt to refrain unseemly and immodest behaviour.112 Winter sets out from a reputed passage in Seneca’s Consolatio ad Helviam (to which I shall return in a while) to argue that 1 Timothy rebukes the lifestyle of the “new Roman woman”, a type featuring “sexually provocative dress style”, adultery as a way of life and rejection of motherhood.113 While adornment expressing “promiscuous availability”114 is possible in itself, there is not much in 1 Tim 2,9b–10 to suggest that this would have been the reason for the restriction. The proscribed items express wealth and luxury, not (direct) erotic enticement, as would, for instance, a transparent115 or not-sufficiently-covering dress.116 The mh. … avlla, construction that opposes the worth of good deeds performed in acquiescent dedication, to the value of expensive articles of adornment sustains the impression that the emphasis is on wealth and ostentation, not on promiscuity. Good deeds are a mark of orthodoxy (the opponents fail in this regard, Tit 1,16) and a requirement concerning the better-off, who have to be benefactors of their community, instead of relying on their wealth (1 Tim 6,17–18; cf. 5,10).117 Moderation in adornment is a topos reflecting traditional Greco-Roman standards. The exhortation opposes costly adornment to inner values and promotes women’s simplicity, domesticity and modesty.118 The topos is widespread in ancient literature.119 Its recurrence in Greek and Roman sources shows that such stock paraenesis does not allow for categorical 111 TOWNER, Letters, 205 (through her dress “a woman would signal either modesty and dignity or promiscuous availability”), passim; following WINTER, Roman Wives, 101. 112 H. MARSHALL, PE, 449; MOUNCE, PE, 114–115. 113 WINTER, Roman Wives, 98–99, cf. Sen., Helv., 16.3–5; ID., “You Were What You Wore”, http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=277. 114 TOWNER, Letters, 205. 115 E.g. in Phint., De mul. mod. (THESLEFF, 153,15–16). 116 Eur., Andr. 595–602; Plut., Conj. praec. 31 (Mor. 142C-D); Aul. Gell, Noct. Att. 6.12.2. 117 WAGENER, Ordnung, 87–88. 118 DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN, 46; SPICQ, Épîtres I, 419; BALCH, Wives, 101–102; WAGENER, Ordnung, 83–85; ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 127, 133–135; MERZ, Selbstauslegung, 274–288; H. MARSHALL, PE, 449í450; TOWNER, Letters, 208í209, WITHERINGTON, Letters, 224í225, FIORE, PE, 65. 119 Plut., Conj. praec. 26, Mor. 141E; also Conj. praec. 12, Mor. 139D: husbands should persuade their wives to give up luxurious and expensive lifestyle (trufh, kai. polute,leia) and to be moderate. Women, deprived of their shoes ornamented with gold, their necklaces, bracelets, their purple and pearls (margari,taij), will stay indoors (Conj. praec. 30, Mor 142C). Lysander rejects the costly garments (i`ma,tia polutelw/n) sent by the despot Dionysius to his daughters arguing that they would be “ma/llon aivscrai,” (Plut., Reg. et Imp. Apophth., Mor. 190E; cf. Apophth. Lac., Mor. 229A, Lys. 2.5; Archidamus in Apophth. Lac., Mor 218E). See also Sen., Helv. 16.3–4. Several other examples will be discussed in this chapter.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

365

conclusions about Christian women’s taste for beautification, show-off or promiscuity. It is also true that the passage is not a direct indicator for the social status of these women.120 Nonetheless, given the financial dimension of such adornment, the exhortation only makes sense when the addressees are women of some means.121 The argument would otherwise be pointless. While the moral implications of the topic should not be denied, due to its common association with wealth the censure of adornment has a deeper motivation. Roloff has aptly noted the polemic intent of the topos and the emphasis on conservative values and on self-effacement.122 Expensive adorning reflects wealth. Wealth is a source of social (and sometimes indirect political) power that, in its turn, enhances the exercise of authority. For this reason limitations imposed on expensive female adornment in 1 Tim 2 do not aim merely at promoting morality, but should be seen in the light of ancient regulations limiting women’s wealth, display of wealth and (implicitly) authority and promoting female retirement and submissiveness. Not accidentally, the passage concludes by encouraging women to comply with traditional female roles, submissiveness and an unassuming lifestyle (v. 15). 1 Tim 5,6 Some authors argue that widows should be seen as a homogeneous destitute category, all the more as 1 Tim 5,4.16 demands relatives and better-off members or the ekklƝsia to take care of poor widows (ĺ4.3.2). However, 1 Tim 5,6 cautions the widow said to indulge in luxury (spatalw/sa)123 against the devastating consequences of such lifestyle (zw/sa te,qnhken). Further on in the paraenesis younger widows are envisaged as involved in (pastoral) house calls and probably informal teaching.124 These details reveal the connection 120 Wealth and high social standing were not always paired. Women of lower status could sometimes have more means or could be more concerned with ostentatious adornment (HOLMES, Text, 60–64). Yet, because courtesans fell into this category one may not conclude that the addressees in 1 Tim belonged to it. On the downward social diffusion of costly items of adornment, challenging the borders between social strata and social order: BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 41, 45– 46, 48–49; on the adornment of meretrices, ead., 36–38. 121 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 134; WAGENER, Ordnung, 87–88, 238; R. COLLINS, 1–2 Tim Tit, 68; H. MARSHALL, PE, 450; TOWNER, Letters, 196, 205; MOUNCE, PE, 114–115; LAMPE, LUZ, “Nachpaulinisches Christentum”, 187. On the influence of wealthy women: OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 90; BASSLER, 1 Tim 2 Tim Tit, 58; VERNER, Household, 168; KIDD, Wealth, 102–103, 105. 122 ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 127. 123 BDAG s.v. spatala,w: “to indulge oneself beyond the bounds of propriety, live luxuriously/voluptuously”. LSJ s.v. has “to live softly or in excessive comfort or indulgence”; s.v. spata,lh has “wantonness, luxury”. See also UBS [BibleWorks], s.v. spatala,w: live in self-indulgence, live in luxury; Louw-Nida [BibleWorks]: to indulge oneself excessively in satisfying one’s own appetites and desires, to live indulgently. Ezek 16,49 LXX and Js 5,5 are telling, as both connect spatala,w to abundance in and enjoyment of material goods. 124 OBERLINNER, 1 Tim, 239, 245–246.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

366

Women on the public stage

between wealth and authority. This admonition is part of a passage demanding widows to be domestic, to dedicate themselves to marital life and maternal duties and to abstain from public activities (vv. 13–14).125 The admonition against a self-indulgent lifestyle suggests that widows are not altogether a destitute category, but at least some of them are welloff. V. 13 discredits widows involved in house calls and possibly in (informal) teaching. At least some of them, in virtue of their standing and probably their financial means may have acquired certain (undesired) influence in the community.126 Widows dedicating themselves to various activities in the church are therefore harshly rebuked and demanded to assume traditional gender roles. Again, motherhood figures prominently. In what follows I will focus on the issue of authority ensuing from wealth, as one of the main reasons that female adorning and a luxurious lifestyle are commonly condemned in antiquity.127 I argue that the same motifs are present in 1 Timothy. 4.3.3.2 Adorning and its restriction The display of wealth and a luxurious lifestyle are a constant subject of criticism in antiquity for both sexes.128 Wealth has an ambivalent function: it is a qualification for belonging to the elite, yet its excessive display, by means of grooming, luxurious houses, extravagant meals or exceeding expenditure (even when for liberal benefactions), is reprehensible.129 In men, a taste for luxury and adorning signifies effeminacy and lack of self-control.130 While sobriety is demanded from men and women, the latter are much more frequently accused for their lavish adorning and lifestyle. Fondness of luxury 125 In a similar manner, a noteworthy passage in Polybius connects greed, a luxurious, indulgent lifestyle and the ensuing rejection of marriage and childrearing with perdition: “For as people had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice (filocrhmosu,nh), and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them (mh. boulome,nwn mh,te gamei/n( mh,tV( eva.n gh,mwsi( ta. gino,mena te,kna tre,fein), or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up in luxury/indulgence (spatalw/ntaj qre,yai), the evil rapidly and insensibly grew” (36.17.7, modified, also quoted by LSJ s.v. spatala,w). The passage refers to the time of the fourth Macedonian war. 126 WAGENER (Ordnung, 111–112) and OBERLINNER (1 Tim, 246–247) contrast the social influence of female benefactors in society with the constraints imposed on women (particularly widows), in the community of the PE. 127 WAGENER, Ordnung, 111–113. 128 Luxury is a sign of moral corruption in men and women. EDWARDS, Immorality, 5, 25–26, 176–179. 129 EDWARDS, Immorality, 13–16, 138–141, 144–161, 164–166, 183, 186–188, 203. 130 Sen. (E), Contr., praef. 7–9; EDWARDS, Immorality, 25, 78, 80–82; WILLIAMS, Roman Homosexuality, 141, 165, 169–170, 174, 199.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

367

is said to be a typically female trait, an inclination rooted in women’s irrational nature, with harmful economic and social consequences.131 Adorning also provides women with (unwanted) social visibility. According to literary, visual and epigraphic sources, adornment involving expensive fabrics, purple, gold jewellery, pearls or precious stones, far from being a mere gender marker, has an important symbolic function – it expresses female status and wealth.132 Hairdos (and their representation) also indicate the social rank of the person.133 Adorning habits may also imply command over labour power to assist with beautification.134 Financial resources were various. Jewellery and articles of clothing could be part of the dowry, of a woman’s inheritance, or they could be received as gifts or purchased.135 The financial resources of the husband were important, but in the Greek East and in Rome women became able to acquire and manage funds, as they could own and administer estates.136 An outfit was an 131 BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 25–27, 39–41, 56–57. Tiberius condemns the luxury of Roman elites, men and women: “For on what am I to make my first effort at prohibition and retrenchment to the ancient standard? The infinte expanse of our villas? The number of slaves of every nationality? The weight of our silver and gold? The marvels of bronze and canvas? The promiscuous dress of male and female – and the specially female extravagance by which, for the sake of jewels, our wealth is transported to alien or hostile countries?” (Tac., Ann. 3.53, transl. Jackson, modified). 132 See BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 15–73; KUNST, “Ornamenta Uxoria”, 127–142. On the (exorbitant) cost of pearls, target of virulent criticism, of jewellery and fabrics: BERG, 54–56; KUNST, 137–138, SPICQ, Épîtres I, 377. 133 BARTMAN, “Hair”, 1–25, on the symbolic functions and evolution of hairstyles in imperial Rome, and the more simple Eastern hairdo (17). For Roman scorn: Juv., Sat. 6, 487–493.495–503. 134 On the Athenian Hegeso- and Ameinocleia stelae: WASSERMANN, “Serenity”, 193–202; J. YOUNGER, “Women in Relief”, 167–210 (he argues that standing women not clasping hands with the deceased may be friends, but in the two stelae the attitude of defference contradicts such supposition). See also the hairdressing scene from the Carthage National Museum (BARTMAN, “Hair”, 4), and Juv., Sat. 6, 490–503. On ornatrices and other slaves in charge with clothes and mirrors: GÜNTHER, “Matrona, vilica”, 350–376; JOSHEL, Work, 147; BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 66–68. 135 Unlike an estate, jewellery and clothes were belongings which even Greek women could dispose of. On clothes (ta. i`ma,tia) and gold jewellery (ta. crusi,dia) as part of the dowry: Isae. 2.9, cf. id., 8.8 (i`mati,oi kai. crusi,oi); Dem. 41.27 (crusi,a, i`ma,tia); on maternal property (ta. mhtrw/|a): Dem. 36.32. See the discussion in HARRIS-CLINE, “Women and Sacred Property” 1, 6. For dowry, inheritance, and gifts from husband or family as sources for acquiring jewellery in imperial Rome: BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 50–54 (via legacies from both sexes jewellery tended to concentrate in the hands of women); see also KUNST, “Ornamenta”, 135. 136 On Greek women’s property rights in the Hellenistic and Roman period: VAN BREMEN, “Women and Wealth”, 223–242. On Roman women’s ownership and inheritance rights: TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 365–396; CLARK, “Roman Women”, 206; SALLER, “Pater Familias, Mater Familias”, 182–197. Cicero’s wife, Terentia managed important financial means and estates (POMEROY, Oikonomikos, 71). For later periods: PÖLÖNEN, “The Division of Wealth”, 147–179; BAGNALL, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 92–99, 130–133 (noting the lower percentage of urban women owning land, as a possible Roman influence, and arguing that estimations about women holding up to one fifth of Roman estate are too high); COOPER, “Household and Empire”, 113. On female heads of household in early Christian communities: OSIEK, M. MACDONALD, A Woman’s Place, 157–159.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

368

Women on the public stage

expression of one’s enhanced socioeconomic status.137 Jewels on the other hand were deposits of capital, which could be changed into cash.138 Economic power resulted in increased social freedom. This suggests that wealth, social influence ensuing from it and the display of wealth operating as a status marker were intimately connected. It is not by chance that women’s adorning was a common target of ancient criticism. Admonitions to women to avoid expensive ornaments (purple or coloured garments, gold and pearls) and elaborate hair wear embody a motif reiterated in sacred laws, in Greek and Roman moralists, in Roman satire and in sumptuary legislation. The economic dimension of these regulations is often obvious. These sources will be discussed in what follows, with the purpose of showing the pervasiveness of the topos and the connection between economy and authority. Sacred laws forbade women to enter the sanctuary or to celebrate the mysteries while adorned with gold or dressed with expensive (purple) or vividly coloured garments or braided hair. Such is the sacred law preserved at a sanctuary of Despoina in Lycosura139 and the inscription regulating the mysteries at Andania concerning the hierai.140 The requirement to avoid the alluring effect of beautification in a sacred context is probably not a sufficient reason for such prohibitions, as it would not explain the restriction on sandals, would be less evident for black garments and would not work for men. The simplicity of female attire is probably also in view. As gold, purple and jewellery are indicators of wealth, some authors regard these requirements as sumptuary regulations.141 Literature, in particular satire, censures the display of wealth through adorning. Juvenal associates beautification and jewellery with recklessness 137

BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 41–50, 54–57. BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 56–57 (jewels as “portable property”, gold as investment). 139 The sacred law preserved in a fragmentary inscription in Lycosura (Arcadia, 3rd cent. BCE) rules: “let it not be permissible for those to pass in who are bringing into the sanctuary of Despoina any gold objects which are not intended for dedication, nor purple, flower-decorated or black clothing, nor sandals, nor a ring (mh. cr[u]si,a o[sa mh. ivn avna,qema mhde. porfu,reon ei`matismo.n mhde. avnqino.n mhde. [me,l]ana mhde. u`podh,mata mhde. daktu,lion). If anyone does enter with any of these things which the stele prohibits, let him dedicate it in the sanctuary. Nor [let it be permissible to enter] [for women] with their hair braided, not [for men] with their heads covered (mhde. ta.j tri,caj avmpeplegme,naj( mhde. kekalumme,noj).” IG V/2, 514 (PH 32662), cf. GUARDUCCI, EG IV, 20–23, repr. with Engl. transl. in CONNOLLY, “Standing”, 108–109. 140 Clothes should not be expensive or transparent; these women should not wear gold or purple, nor use make-up (IG V/1, 1390, ll. 15–28, 1st cent. BCE). The gynaikonomoi had to control compliance with these rules. See also NILSSON, Geschichte II, 96–97 (page numbers refer to the reprint edition); BERNHARDT, Luxuskritik, 103. The hierai are more probably cult officials, not wives of the ieroi. 141 On the economic dimension of the sacred laws from Andania and Lycosura: NILSSON, Geschichte 2, 45; BERNHARDT, Luxuskritik, 102–103; on the focus of sacred (sumptuary) laws on women: 104. 138

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

369

and immorality.142 The topos of female extravagance and impudicity is part of a nostalgia for the past, when women, though poor, were hardworking, modest and chaste.143 Shunning concern for outward beauty and adornment for the sake of respectable behaviour is common in moral philosophers. Neopythagorean writings connect fondness of luxury and adorning with immorality and marital infidelity, yet the main concern of these exhortations is to endorse a self-effacing lifestyle. The treatise On the Harmony of a Woman, attributed to Perictione, encourages women to avoid excessive preoccupation with their outfit, luxurious clothes, gold, precious stones and braided hair, as well as expensive perfumes, preferring instead a modest (fronh,sioj) deportment.144 It is not by accident that immediately after dismissing expensive adornment the author demands compliance with a modest social and economic standing and with the lack of influential friends.145 A comparable argument appears in Phintys’ On Woman’s Temperance.146 In the letter of Melissa to Kleareta we read that: 142

“There’s nothing that a woman doesn’t allow herself, nothing she considers shameful, once she has put an emerald choker (viridis gemmas) around her neck and has fastened giant pearls (magnos commisit elenchus) to her elongated ears. [There is nothing more intolerable than a wealthy woman]”, Juv., Sat. 6, 457–460 (transl. Morton Braund). The last verse is deleted in Paldamus. 143 On the contrast see Juv., Sat. 6, 287–305. 144 “The body should also be trained to moderation in food, clothes, baths, massage, hairdressing and adornment with gold and [precious] stones (peri. kai. i`mati,wn kai. loutrw/n kai. avleifi,wn kai. tricw/n qe,sioj kai. tw/n o`ko,sa evj ko,smon evsti. crusou/ kai. li,qwn). Sumptuous (polutele,a) eating, drinking, garments and keepsakes involve them in every crime, and faithlessness to their husband and everybody else. […] It is also great folly to search after excessively elegant garments, made brilliant with purple or other precious colors. The body itself demands no more than to be saved from cold and nakedness, for the sake (of) propriety (ca,rin euvprepei,hj) […] No woman should be decorated with gold (cruso,n), nor gems from India (li,qon vIndiko,n), nor any other country, nor plait her hair artistically (ouvde. ple,xetai polutecni,h|si tri,caj), nor be perfumed with Arabian perfumes, nor paint her face […]. A woman of this sort is hunting a spectator of female intemperance. The beauty produced by prudence (ka,lloj ga.r to. evk fronh,sioj), and not by these particulars, pleases women that are well born)” Perict., De mul. harm., THESLEFF, 143,9–28; GUTHRIE, 239–241, modified, emphases added. 145 “Neither should she consider it necessary to be noble, rich, to be born in a great city, have glory, and the friendship of renowned or royal men. The presence of such should not cause her annoyance, but should they be absent she should not regret them; their absence will not hinder the prudent woman from living properly. Her soul should not anxiously dream about them, but ignore them. They are really more harmful than beneficial, as they mislead to misfortune; inevitable are treachery, envy and calumny, so that their possessor cannot be free from perturbation.” THESLEFF, 143,28–144,5; GUTHRIE, 239. 146 “As to body-ornaments (peri. de. tou/ ko,smou tou/ peri. to. sw/ma), a woman’s garments should be white and simple and not superfluous. They will be so if they are neither transparent nor variegated, nor woven from silk, inexpensive, and white. This will prevent excessive ornamentation, luxury, and embellishment, and will avoid the imitation of depravity by others. Neither gold nor emeralds should ornament her body (cruso.n de. kai. sma,ragdon a`plw/j mh. periti,qesqai); for they are very expensive (polucrh,maton) and exhibit pride and arrogance […] A woman should, besides, illuminate her face, not by powder or rouge, but by the natural glow from washing with water,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

370

Women on the public stage

[t]he temperate (sw,fron) and free[born] [woman] must live with her lawful husband adorned with modesty (aivscu,na|),147 clad in neat, simple, white dress without extravagance (mh. polutelh/) or excess. She must avoid clothing that is either entirely purple or is streked with purple and gold, for that kind of dress is worn by hetaerae when they stalk the masses of men. But the adornment (ko,smoj) of a woman who wishes to please only one man, her own husband, is her character and not her clothing. […] She should have on her face a blush of modesty (aivdw,j) instead of make-up, excellence, respectability and temperance instead of gold and smaragds (kalokagaqi,an de. kai. kosmio,tata kai. swfrosu,nan avnti. crusw/ kai. smara,gdw). […] The woman longing for temperance should not cultivate fondness for expensive clothes, but for the management of her household (ouv ga.r evj ta.n ta/j evsqa,toj polute,leian filokalei/n dei/ ta.n glico,menan ta/j swfrosu,naj, avll’ evj ta.n oivkonomi,an tw/| oi;kw), pleasing her husband by doing what he wishes, as the wishes of her husband should be unwritten law for a modest woman (no,moj ovfei,lei a;grafoj ei=nai kosmi,a| gunaiki,), according which she should live, deeming that she brought with herself orderliness (euvtaxi,a) as the most beautiful and largest dowry. She must trust more the beauty and richness of her soul than that of her face or wealth (crhma,ta).148

Thus the main thrust of the Neopythagorean exhortations is to promote women’s acquiescence with traditional roles, complete submission and selfeffacement (ĺ2.6). It is therefore obvious that the restrictions imposed on expensive adornment do not merely promote sexual morality (certainly an important issue) but also refrain women’s self-assertiveness. Plutarch endorses a similar combination of moderation in adornment and modesty: Adornment (ko,smoj) […] is what adorns (to. kosmou/n); and what adorns (kosmei/) a woman is what makes her more decorous (kosmiwte,ran). Not gold nor emeralds nor scarlet make her such, but whatever gives an impression of dignity (semno,thj), orderliness (euvtaxi,a), and modesty (aivdw,j).149

Epictetus criticises young women whose main aim in life is to conquer a man by means of adorning; they should be led instead to understand that esteem is earned by decent and modest behaviour in self-restraint (kosmi,ai kai.. aivdh,monej evn swfrosu,nh).150 adorning herself with modesty (kosme.n de. ma/llon au`ta.n aivscu,na|) rather than by art. Thus she will reflect honor both on herself and her husband.” THESLEFF, 153,15–28; Engl. GUTHRIE, 264, modified. 147 For aivscu,na| (Städele), to be prefered to a`suca/ (Thesleff), see STÄDELE, 258. 148 STÄDELE, 160,5–9.11–13.15–19; THESLEFF, 115,27–116,16; Engl. MALHERBE, Moral Exhortations, 83 (modified). 149 Plut., Conj. praec. 26, Mor 141E (transl. Pomeroy, modified). 150 “Women from fourteen years are flattered with the title of ‘mistress’ by men. […] they begin to adorn themselves, and in that to place all their hopes. It is worth while, therefore, to fix

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

371

Roman Stoics reiterate this ideal. Seneca’s Consolatio ad Helviam is telling. His argument combines praise of female pudicitia, abstention from expensive adornment, disparagement of wealth, adherence to traditional values, domesticity and acceptance of motherhood: Unchastity (inpudicitia), the greatest evil of our time, has never classed you with the great majority of women; jewels have not moved you, nor pearls; to your eyes the glitter of riches has not seemed the greatest boon of the human race (non gemmae te, non margaritae flexerunt; non tibi divitiae velut maximum generis humani bonum refulserunt); you, who were soundly trained in an old-fashioned and strict household (bene in antiqua et severa institutam domo), have not been perverted by the imitation of worse women that leads even the virtuous into pitfalls; you have never blushed for your fertility (fecunditas), […] never have you, in the manner of other women whose only recommendation lies in their beauty, tried to conceal your pregnancy as if an unseemly burden, nor have you ever crushed the hope of children that were being nurtured in your body; you have not defiled your face with paints and cosmetics; never have you fancied the kind of dress that exposed no greater nakedness by being removed. In you has been seen that peerless ornament, that fairest beauty on which time lays no hand, that chiefest glory which is modesty (pudicitia).151

This ideal combines the same values as those promoted in 1 Tim 2,9–10.15 and 5,6.14: scorn for wealth and adornment, a self-effacing, modest lifestyle and dedicated motherhood.152 The economic dimension of all these exhortations is striking. All authors target expensive adornment that obviously displays wealth. In what follows I will show that the female (display of) wealth is not merely a moral issue. Ancient mentality associates female affluence with undesired authority. As a consequence manifold regulations limit women’s right to hold or manage property. 4.3.3.3 Restrictions imposed on women’s wealth Legal regulations and moral-philosophical exhortations address women’s right to own and display wealth. I do not contend that early Greek and Roman laws still applied at the time when the Pastorals were written, nor that we can establish a literary dependence on the moral philosophers cited here. Nonetheless, the repeated restrictions imposed on women’s wealth our attention on making them sensible that they are esteemed for nothing else but the appearance of a decent and modest and discreet behaviour.” Ench. 40 (transl. Carter), 269–270, cf. 345, n. 21. 151 Sen., Helv. 16.3–4 (transl. Basore, modified). 152 The dialogue also addresses (with slight criticism) the traditional restriction of women’s education (17.3).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

372

Women on the public stage

reflect a remarkably enduring mentality that re-emerges in authors of the first and second century CE and is also reflected in the PE. a. Property and dowry As economic power enhanced social influence, women’s dowry and inheritance rights were commonly subject to legal regulations, often preventing them from owning property (as in Athens)153 or limiting their right to manage these resources (in Hellenistic Egypt, Asia and Rome). The institution of kyrieia was an obvious expression of the connection between authority and owning or disposing of wealth. Spartan154 and Cretan law155 on women’s inheritance and ownership rights was more permissive. Political theorists frequently censured this permissiveness. In Plato’s Laws, the Athenian pleads for the need to regulate female wealth. Women should not be allowed to indulge in luxury and in expensive and disorderly lifestyle.156 The Athenian would like to exclude dowries from the utopian Cretan constitution, to prevent women from acquiring power over their husbands.157 Aristotle criticises the Spartan constitution for having ne153

In Athenian law, women could not inherit and own property, but only transmitted it to their male descendents. See DE STE. CROIX, “Property Rights”, 273–278 (noting the difference between Athenian and other Greek legislation, and the contrast between the classical and the Hellenistic period); SCHAPS, “Women in Greek Inheritance Law”, 53–57; GOULD, “Law”, 38–59, esp. 44. The dowry was controlled by the husband, and if he died or divorced, it passed to the new kyrios. SALLER suggested that in Greece dowry served to settle the daughter’s claim to her father’s property and was an alternative to female inheritance (“Roman Dowry”, 195–205). The argument is problematic because, as Gould shows (above), the Athenian woman did not actually own her dowry. The example of Gortyn is not relevant, since daughters inherited there. In Athenian law women were transmitters of property. The woman was treated in law “as incapable of a self-determined act, as almost in law an un-person outside the limits of those who constitute society’s responsible and representative agents; and yet, at the same time, as precious and essential to the maintenance of a continuing social order and in particular to the continuity of property”; GOULD, 44–45; also LACEY, Family, 122, 24–25, 138 (the kyrieia and women’s inability to dispose over property); on the epiklerate: 89–90, 139–145. 154 Arist., Pol. 2, 1269b–1270a; Plut., Agis 7.1–4. Also POMEROY, Spartan Women, 76–84, 87– 89, 92–93. 155 As early as the mid-fifth century Gortyn law (WILLETTS, The Law Code of Gortyn, esp. 21– 27). The daughter could inherit. The heiress could refuse to marry the next-of-kin, giving up part of her inheritance. Willetts argues that the earlier legislation was more favourable to women. He regards the Gortyn code as “a prelude to the Athenian conditions, when the daughter could expect nothing but a dowry”, and assumes that one century later this might have been the case in Crete, too. 156 Pl., Leg. 7, 806C. 157 Pl., Leg. 7, 774CD (“Of the marriage portion [proiko,j] […] again I say for the instruction of poor men that he who neither gives nor receives a dowry on account of poverty, has a compensation; for the citizens of our state are provided with the necessaries of life, and wives will be less likely to be insolent, and husbands to be mean and subservient to them on account of property [u[brij de. h-tton gunaixi. kai. doulei,a tapeinh. kai. avneleu,qeroj dia. crh,mata toi/j gh,masi gi,gnoito a;n]”).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

373

glected restrictive legislation on women. They escaped control and gained excessive economic power, secured by their dowry, inheritance rights and landowning. Their indulgence led to the economic ruin of the country; moreover, they also wielded influence on public matters, exerting authority over men: Again, the freedom in regard to women is detrimental both in regard to the purpose of the constitution and in regard to the happiness of the state. […] [I]n the case of the women [the legislator] has entirely neglected the matter; for they live dissolutely in respect of every sort of dissoluteness, and luxuriously. So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honour, especially if it is the case that people are under the sway of women […]. [In Sparta] many things were controlled by the women; yet what difference does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are ruled by the women? […] [Spartan women] caused more confusion than the enemy. […] Lycurgus did attempt to bring them under laws, yet since they resisted he gave it up. So the Spartan women are […] to blame for what took place then and therefore manifestly for the present defect […]. [E]rrors as regards the status of women seem not only to cause a certain unseemliness in the actual conduct of the state but to contribute in some degree to undue love of money. […] [N]early two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited to a small or moderate amount […].158

Aristotle’s censure highlights the intricate relationship between wealth, illegitimate female authority and influence on public affairs. The perception that (Spartan) women’s property rights endowed them with undesired authority over men was not a problem of the remote past, as the same idea re-emerges in Plutarch. Women’s control over wealth is linked to their rule over husbands, their meddling in public affairs and their opposition to land reform.159 His critical record of the Spartan state of affairs is obviously directed against contemporary conditions. Women’s right to own property not only encourages luxury, but also threatens familial concord. Columella deplores the ancient times when wives were chiefly concerned with their husband’s economic success and property was undivided.160 He censures women’s claim on property and 158

Pol. 2, 1269B–1270A (emphases added). See also HERRMANN-OTTO, “Verfassung”, 25–27; POMEROY, Families, 64–65. 159 Plut., Agis 7.1–4; cf. 6.4 on the economic and political power of Agis’ mother. 160 “Erat enim summa reverentia cum concordia et diligentia mixta, flagrabatque mulier pulcherrima aemulatione studens negotia viri cura sua maiora atque meliora reddere. Nihil conspiciebatur in domo dividuum, nihil, quod aut maritus aut femina proprium esse iuris sui diceret, sed in commune conspirabatur ab utroque, ut cum forensibus negotiis matronalis industria rationem

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

374

Women on the public stage

their involvement in their own business at the cost of domestic engagement, that in addition leads to a luxurious lifestyle. Plutarch argues that a wife, even when better-off and bringing more assets into marriage should claim nothing to be her own. Not only should consorts achieve the commonality of assets, but “property and the house should be called the husband’s even when the wife contributes the greater part”.161 Due to the association of wealth, coming with dowry or entering the marriage as the property of the wife, with her subsequent authority, numerous sources warn men against the threat represented by a wealthy wife. Okkelos places the issue of marriage over one’s own status and the reversal of acceptable relations of authority in a broader perspective (ĺ2.3.2). Since humans belong to the oikos and the polis, their relations have serious influence on the welfare or decay of these communities.162 The interrelation between individual, social and universal wellbeing introduces the warning against marriages which disregard public and familial benefit, aiming at wealth and social standing (pro.j to.n plou/ton h; th.n u`peroch.n tou/ ge,nouj).163 Such men procure for themselves discord instead of concord; and instead of unanimity, dissension; contending with each other for the mastery (peri. h`gemoni,aj diamaco,menoi pro.j avllh,louj). For the wife who surpasses her husband in wealth, in birth, or in friends, is desirous of ruling over him, contrary to the law of nature. But the husband justly resisting this desire of superiority in his wife, and wishing not to be the second, but the first in domestic sway, is unable, in the management of his family, to take the lead (u`pere,cousa plou,tw| kai. ge,nei kai. fi,loij a;rcein proairei/tai tou/ avndro.j para. to.n th/j fu,sewj no,mon, o` de. ge diamaco,menoj dikai,wj kai. ouv deu,teroj avlla. prw/toj qe,lwn ei=nai avdunatei/ th/j h`gemoni,aj evfike,sqai).164

Such misguided motivation for marriage leads to disharmony in the oikos; moreover, it has dramatic consequences for the entire polis.165 A very similar position is reflected by another Neopythagorean treatise, On the Felicity of Families, assigned to Callicratidas.166 The treatise examines the parem faceret. […] Nunc vero cum pleraeque sic luxu et inertia diffluant, ut ne lanificii quidem curam suscipere dignentur, sed domi confectae vestes fastidio sint, perversaque cupidine maxime placeant, quae grandi pecunia et paene totis censibus redimuntur: nihil mirum est easdem ruris et instrumentorum agrestium cura gravari, sordidissimumque negotium ducere paucorum dierum in villa moram.” (Colum., Res rustica 12, praef. 8–9; transl. Ash, emphases added). 161 Plut., Conj. praec. 20., Mor. 140EF, cf.. 34, Mor. 142F–143A (the simile of entirely mixing liquids). 162 Okkel., De univ. nat), 45, in THESLEFF, 135,20–24; GUTHRIE, 209–211. 163 Okkel., 48, THESLEFF, 136,15–18; Engl. GUTHRIE, 1987, 210. 164 Okkel., De univ. nat) 46, THESLEFF, 136,22–25; GUTHRIE, 210 (emphases added). 165 THESLEFF 136, 50.26–28; GUTHRIE, 210. 166 Callicrat., De dom. felic., THESLEFF, 103–107; Engl. GUTHRIE, 235–237.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

375

rule of the husband over his wife in a manner reminiscent of Aristotle (wives should be governed with political rule). This reflection leads to the issue of the wife’s economical and social condition. Wealth may thwart the husband’s rule, as it encourages the wife to exert authority over him.167 He who wishes to marry ought to take for a wife one whose fortune is conformable to his own, neither above nor beneath, but of equal property. Those who marry a woman above their condition have to contend for the mastership (stasia,zonti di.a ta.n a`gemoni,an); for the wife, surpassing her husband in wealth and lineage, wishes to rule over him (tavndroj a;rcein); but he considers it to be unworthy (avna,xion) of him and unnatural (para. fu,sin) to submit to his wife.168

The Stoic Hierocles emphasises the same danger. Those who marry not for procreation, nor for a harmonious common life, “being attracted to the union by the magnitude of the dowry, […] introduce to themselves instead of a wife a tyrant, whom they cannot resist and with whom they are unable to contend for chief authority”.169 Plutarch notes that men marrying women for their wealth overlook the more important aspect, that of companionship in marriage.170 According to Roman custom, in marriages with manus, dowry was controlled by the husband, but it remained the nominal property of the wife.171 The dowry brought by wealthy women enhanced the upward social mobility of husbands.172 A woman’s wealth and implicitly dowry was an 167

THESLEFF, 106,14–107,4; GUTHRIE, 236–237. THESLEFF, 106,4.17–19; GUTHRIE, 236. 169 ouv ga.r evpi. pai,dwn gene,sei kai. bi,ou koinwni,a| a;gontai gunai/kaj( avllV oi] me.n dia. proiko.j o;gkon( oi] me.n evxoch.n morfh/j( oi] de. diV a;llaj tina.j toioutotro,pouj aivti,aj( ai–j crw,menoi kakoi/j sumbou,loij( ouvde.n peri. th/j diaqe,seoj kai tou/ h;qouj th/j nu,mfhj poluptagmonh,santej( o;leqron auvtw/n qu,ousi to.n ga,mon( kai. qu,raij katestemme,naij tu,rannon avnti. gunaiko.j evpeisa,gousin evautoi/j kai. tau/ta mhde. evfV ovposonou/n avntarke,sai duna,menoi kai. th.n peri. tw/n prwtei,wn a[millan avgwni,sasqai) Hierocl., Fragmenta ethica, Stob., Floril., ed. Meineke 3.24.6–16 (p. 11) = Stob. Anthol., ed. Wachsmuth 4.22.24 (p. 506). Engl. Hierocles, On marriage, GUTHRIE, 282–283; compare RAMELLI, Hierocles, 76/77–78/79. 170 Plut., Conj. praec. 24, Mor. 141 C. 171 SALLER, “Roman Dowry”, 196–197. 172 Tacitus’ father-in-law married the well-born Domitia Decidiana, a bond that was “a distinction and a strength to him in his path forward” (“ad maiora nitenti decus ac robur”), Agr. 6.1. SALLER argued that during the Principate dowries provided by senatorial families were rather modest, and did not contribute significantly to the welfare of the husband; they merely covered the immediate expenditure of the wife, her children and those in her service. An alleged decrease in the size of dowries, when compared to the period of the Republic, was due to the higher rate of divorce: part of the dowry was more likely to be retained by the husband, therefore dowry was not a certain way to provide for the daughter and her children. (“Roman Dowry”, 200–204). Yet, PÖLÖNEN shows that much larger dowries existed at this time, and very often they equalled the amount needed to accede to a higher rank (“Division”, 165–166). 168

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

376

Women on the public stage

important qualification for marriage.173 This explains why the censure and mockery of men who marry above their means and become thus subservient to their wives is so common. The matter is addressed by playwrights, poets and satirists, from the third century BCE to the second century CE. Cato seems to have cautioned against wives’ financial independence that comes with a large dowry unchecked by the husband.174 Plautus’ Megadorus agrees to marry without taking a dowry, to escape female control.175 Horace encourages his contemporaries to follow the traditional morality of Scythians and Getae: there a dowered wife does not rule over her husband (nec dotata regit virum), but parents’ virtue and women’s chastity are the greatest dowry.176 Martial rejects marriage to a rich wife as she would inevitably dominate her husband, when a matron should be subordinated to her husband.177 In Juvenal’s view, women’s wealth and economic independence coming with dowry not only releases them from male control, but opens the way to immorality and unfaithfulness.178 Roman historians also warn against placing wealth first. Tacitus approves of German customs according to which the wife does not receive a dowry.179 A man should not depend on the wealth of his wife if he wants to preserve his authority.

173

TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 95–100 (on several examples). “principio vobis mulier magnam dotem adtulit; tum magnam pecuniam recipit, quam in viri potestatem non conmittit, eam pecuniam viro mutuam dat; postea, ubi irata facta est, servum recepticidium sectari atquae flagitare virum iubet” (Aul. Gell., Noct. Att. 17.6.1; also JOHNSTON, “Plautus”, 149). 175 Plaut., Aul. 498–502, cf. JOHNSTON, “Plautus”, 149. 176 Hor., Carm. 3.24.17–24, emphasis added (transl. Bennett). 177 “Uxorem quare locupletem ducere nolim, / Quaeritis? Uxori nubere nolo meae. / Inferior matrona suo sit, Prisce, marito: / Non aliter fiunt femina virque pares.” (Mart., Epig. 8.12). “Inferior” has a double-entendre: she should be of inferior condition and wealth, in order be kept in submission. 178 “‘But why does Caesennia’s husband swear that she’s the perfect wife?’ She brought him a million. For that amount he’ll call her chaste (pudica). […] It’s the dowry that sets his flares alight, the arrows come from her dowry. Her freedom is paid for. She can flirt and reply to love letters all she likes, in front of her husband. A wealthy woman who marries a greedy man is in effect single (vidua est, locuples quae nupsit avaro).” (Juv., Sat. 6, 136–141, transl. Morton Braund, modified); P. WATSON, “Juvenal’s Scripta Matrona”, 632–633. One million HS was the property qualification for the senatorial rank. Antoninus Pius’ law allowed women to make donations to their husband enhancing their accession to higher ranks (donatio honoris causa): PÖLÖNEN, “Division”, 165; TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 371. 179 The marriage gift does not serve female delicia or the wife’s adornment; it consists of oxen, a horse and bridle, a shield and a spear or a sword, to symbolise that “she comes to share hard work and peril” with her husband, for better and for worse. Tac., Germ. 18.2–4. The editor notes that the father-in-law gave a sword to the groom, handing over his authority over the bride. Leaving aside the economic value of such gifts, the symbolism of yoked oxen and of bridled horses is telling, as marriage is consistently described as the bridling of the wife. 174

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

377

b. Laws limiting women’s (display of) wealth Fear from women’s economical power finds expression in sumptuary laws restricting women’s display of wealth and limiting the inheritance rights of upper-class women.180 Diodorus of Sicily recounts with sympathy the sumptuary legislation imposed by the legendary Zaleuchos of Locris, penalising women’s display of wealth.181 His account shows that ancient sumptuary legislation continues to resonate with the mindset of authors of the first century BCE. Solon’s legislation, at least as recorded in Plutarch, prohibited dowries; a bride’s dotation was limited to a few inexpensive personal and household items.182 The historical accuracy of Plutarch’s report is irrelevant; what matters here is the ideological explanation. As marriage is chiefly aimed at procreation183 and not at financial gain, not only should the economic contribution of wives be checked, but the appropriate age at marriage should also be preserved. Restraining female authority and appropriate age disparity at marriage are deeply connected limitations on wealth. Older women are often taken in marriage for their dowry. But superiority in wealth and age endows them with authority and the sway of the husband may no longer be secured. Solon’s legislation on women apparently extended to their appearance in public (tai/j evxo,doij tw/n gunaikw/n), their participation in religious rites and their display of wealth through clothing, seeking the eradication of disorder and licence.184 These laws thus combine the limitation of public presence, of religious roles and of verbal expressions (wailing) with that of display of wealth.185 In the 180

The legislation of Zaleuchos of Locris, Solon and Demetrios of Phaleron and the Oppian law, and the Voconian Law, respectively (169 BCE); TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 365–366; POMEROY, Goddesses, 162–163. 181 “[He] stopped their licentious behaviour by a cunningly devised punishment. […] a free-born woman may not be accompanied by more than one female slave, unless she is drunk; she may not leave the city during the night, unless she is planning to commit adultery; she may not wear gold jewelry or a garment with a purple border, unless she is a courtesan; and a husband may not wear a gold-studded ring or a cloak of Milesian fashion unless he is bent upon prostitution or adultery.” Diod. Sic. 12.1 (transl. Oldfather). Also SPICQ, Épîtres I, 419; TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 194. 182 Plut., Sol. 20.4. 183 “For he [Solon] did not wish that marriage should be a matter of profit (misqofo,ron) or price, but that man and wife should dwell together for the delights of love and the getting of children (evpi. teknw,sei kai. ca,riti kai. filo,thti). […] And if he [Dionysius] discovers a young man in the house of a rich and elderly woman, […] he will remove him and give him to some marriageable maid that wants a husband” (Plut., Sol. 20,4–5). For a procreationist view on marriage and the censure of women who marry when conception is no longer possible, disposing over their wealth improperly, see also Val. Max. 7.7.4; compare Plut., Sol. 20.2 (the heiress). 184 Plut., Sol. 21.4–5. Restrictions on mourning rites (pertaining specifically to women) are recorded in the same context. See also SPICQ, Épîtres I, 419. 185 Compliance with these norms was to be checked by the gynaikonomoi. Whether the legal regulations and the institution of gynaikonomoi may be traced back to Solon, or reflect later

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

378

Women on the public stage

Hellenistic period Demetrios of Phaleron also enacted a sumptuary law that restrained the extravagance displayed at banquets and funerals and in particular in women’s outfit.186 Sumptuary legislation was a concern in Rome as well. The regulations of the Oppian Law (215) are evoked by Livy.187 The law was instated after the Roman defeat at Cannae and forbade women to possess more than half an ounce of gold, to wear purple, multicoloured clothes, or to ride in a carriage in Rome or in towns within one mile, except for public religious festivals.188 Sumptuary legislation was also enacted later by Augustus. In a summary of this law, Dio Cassius connects restriction of adornment with the promotion of modest behaviour (peri. th/j evsqh/toj( kai. peri. tou/ loipou/ kosmou/ […] kai. th/j swfrosu,nhj auvtw/n).189 Livy’s account of the turmoil accompanying the debate over the repeal of the Oppian law is worth a closer look, given the explicit association between wealth and authority.190 The repeal was initiated in 195 by the tribunes M. Fundanius and L. Valerius and the law was eventually revoked, in spite of Cato’s opposition, apparently due to the public protestation of elite women. Matrons, says Livy, could not be kept at home by advice or modesty or by their husbands’ orders (“nulla nec auctoritate nec verecundia nec imperio virorum contineri limine poterant”). They streamed into the streets, beseeching the men heading to the Forum and the officials to restore their former distinction (“pristinus ornatus”).191 The matrons openly violate propriety and male authority. The course of the events, the debate related to the revocation of the law and especially Cato’s speech show to what extent wealth is connected to authority and how condemnable it is when women’s wealth escapes control – they thereby gain power over their husbands and practice, from the time of Demetrios of Phaleron, is a matter of debate, but the underlying principle is more significant. The gynaikonomoi are attested with certainty during the Hellenistic period (OGDEN, Greek Bastardy, 364–375). 186 Control of female adornment was (again) confined to the gynaikonomoi. WILES, “Menander’s ‘Dyskolos’”, 172. Megadorus’ intended appointment as moribus prefaectus mulierum in Plautus’ Aul. 504 may be an allusion to the Greek gynaikonomoi (see JOHNSTON, “Poenulus”, 148). 187 Liv. 34.1.3; 3.9; 7.3, embedded in the account of the 195-debate over its repeal. 188 “ne qua mulier plus semunciam auri haberet neu vestimento versicolori uteretur neu iuncto vehiculo in urbe oppidove aut propius inde mille passus nisi sacrorum publicorum causa veheretur”, Liv. 34.1. On the background of the law and of its repeal: JOHNSTON, “Poenulus”, 144–146. She regards Plautus’ Poenulus as a parody of the debate over the repeal of the Oppian law, where Cato’s arguments are ironically repeated by Adelphasium, a hetaera that prefers to be adorned with bono ingenio instead of gold, and with pudor rather than purple (Poen. 302–305, in JOHNSTON, 152). 189 Dio Cass. 54,6; cf. Suet., Aug. 34, referring to laws on extravagance, on adultery and chastity. 190 KLAUCK uses the passage to illuminate the cultural background of 1 Cor 11,33b–36 and of the restrictive regulations in the PE (Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt, 66–68). 191 Liv. 34.1.5. They even approached consuls, praetors and other officials (34.1.7).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

379

meddle in public affairs.192 Cato regards women’s opposition to sumptuary legislation a blatant violation of male authority and an attack on political stability. Such public protestation of women opens the way to any evil and is associated with conspiracy, the worst fear of Roman rulers: If each of us, citizens, had determined to assert his rights and dignity as a husband (ius et maiestatem viri retinere) with respect to his own wife, we should have less trouble with the sex as a whole; as it is, our liberty, destroyed at home by female violence, even here in the Forum, is crushed and trodden under foot; and because we have not kept them individually under control, we dread them collectively. […] I thought it a fairy-tale and a piece of fiction that on a certain island all the men were destroyed, root and branch, by a conspiracy of women; but from no class is there not the greatest danger if you permit them meetings and gatherings and secret consultations.193

Cato reproaches the matrons that their public entreaty violates traditional decency that would confine women to their home and he reminds men of the ancient regulations that had a woman submitted to her husband in all matters.194 The worst fear is that women will escape control and become equal or even superior to men: Review all the laws with which your forefathers restrained their licence and made them subject to their husbands; even with all these bonds you can scarcely control them. If you suffer them to seize these bonds one by one, and wrench themselves free and finally to be placed on a parity with their husbands, do you think that you will be able to endure them? The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors. […] What pretext, respectable even to mention, is now given for this insurrection of the women? “[…] that we may glitter with gold and purple […], that we may ride in carriages on holidays and ordinary days, that we may be borne through the city as if in triumph over the vanquished and abrogated law and over the votes we have captured and wrested from you; that there may be no limits to our spending and our luxury”.195

192

Liv. 34.2–3. Liv. 34.2.2–4 (transl. Sage, modified, emphases added). 194 “‘What sort of practice is this, of running out into the streets and blocking the roads and speaking to other women’s husbands? Could you not have made the same requests, each of your own husband, at home? Or are you more attractive in public than in private […]? And yet, not even at home, if the modesty would keep matrons within the limits of their own rights, did it become you, […] to concern yourselves about what laws should be adopted in this place or repealed.’ Our ancestors permitted no woman to conduct even private business, without a guardian [...]; they showed them to be under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands. We [...] allow them now even to interfere in public affairs [...] Give reins to their uncontrollable nature and to this untamed creature (indomito animali) and expect that they will themselves set bounds to their licence. […] It is complete liberty; […] complete licence that they desire.” Liv. 34.2.9–14 (transl. Sage, modified, emphases added). 195 Liv. 34.3.1–9 (transl. Sage, modified, emphases added). 193

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

380

Women on the public stage

L. Valerius confirms the association between wealth, female authority and public presence, but he admits that in certain conditions this may benefit the community.196 Matrons averted the Volscian siege under Coriolanus and ransomed Rome from the Gauls by contributing their gold to the public treasury.197 Donations made by widows to the treasury are presented as a common practice in various crises. L. Valerius also shows that adornment secures the dignity of Roman wives and implicitly the respectability of their husbands before Latin allies.198 Ornaments are the insignia of Roman women.199 Excluded from all public offices, women find their distinction in what he calls “women’s adornment” (mundus muliebris).200 While regulations (not laws) are needed, husbands should be able to control their wives’ adorning. Appian recounts another public manifestation of wealthy women against the attempt of the second triumvirate to impose taxes on them to sustain the war.201 In response matrons vehemently protest before the triumvirs, in the forum. Hortensia, the daughter of the prestigious orator and consul Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, voices women’s discontent: You have already deprived us of our fathers, our sons, our husbands, and our brothers […]; if you take away our property also, you reduce us to a condition unbecoming our birth, our manners, our sex. […] Why should we pay taxes when we have no part in the honours, the commands, the statecraft, for which you contend against each other with such harmful results? […] Our mothers did once rise superior to their sex and made contributions when you were in danger of losing the whole empire and the city itself through the conflict with the Carthaginians. But then they contributed voluntarily, not from their landed property, their fields, their dowries, or their houses, without which life is not possible to free women, but only from their own jewellery […]. Let war with 196

Liv. 34.5. On the episode see also App., BCiv. 4.33 (transl. White). 198 Liv. 34.7. 199 And thus of Rome’s superiority over Latium. Rightly, KUNST, “Ornamenta”, 133. 200 “No offices, no priesthoods, no triumphs, no decorations, no gifts, no spoils of war can come to them; elegance of appearance (munditia), adornment (ornamenta), and apparel (cultus) – these are the women’s badges of honour (insignia); in these they rejoice and take delight, these our ancestors have called the woman’s world (mundum muliebrem)”; 34.7.8, transl. Sage. L. Valerius goes on noting that male authority will be preserved in the family, yet family relations should not be comparable to slavery, and men should show self-restraint in the exercise of authority (34.7.11– 15). Mundus muliebris is translated as women’s world, but BERG defines it as “the articles the woman uses to beautify herself” (“Wearing Wealth”, 17, following the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968), s.v. mundus. See further the partial overlap between mundus and ornatus, p. 18). Cf. also TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage, 389 (“women’s toilet equipment”). 201 App., BCiv. 4.32–34. Appian speaks of 1400 of the richest women, but numbers are difficult to check. See also CLARK, “Roman Women”, 207. The edict, ca. 42 BCE, is usually taken to refer to taxation for sustaining the war against the assassins of Caesar. Hortensia speaks of civil wars, and her argument is an implied criticism of the politics of the second triumvirate. 197

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

381

the Gauls or the Parthians come, and we shall not be inferior to our mothers in zeal for the common safety; but for civil wars may we never contribute, nor ever assist you against each other!202

Wealthy women’s public manifestation in defence of their interests and the speech of a woman before political authorities are all but compatible with traditional propriety and gender roles. The plea, certainly constructed, articulates strong criticism of the triumvirs’ politics.203 Appian’s way of relating the reaction of the triumvirs is telling: they “were angry that women should dare to hold a public meeting when the men were silent; that they should demand from magistrates the reasons for their acts and themselves not so much as furnish money while the men were serving in the army.”204 This is a world turned upside down, where women hold public meetings and deliver speeches, challenge politics and legislation, while men keep silent and submit. The protestation seemingly ended with no little success, even when the edict was not revoked – the number of women who had to pay taxes was considerably reduced and the level of taxable property increased. Whatever the historical accuracy of the account may be, one may note the connection between women’s wealth, authority and public speech. 4.3.3.4 Limited acceptance of women’s wealth The wealth of women and the influence ensuing from it is acceptable only when it is used to the benefit of their family or community. A positive association between a woman’s wealth, her authority and her public pursuit is found in the first century BCE Laudatio Turiae.205 (The identification of this unknown woman with Turia, the wife of consul Q. Lucretius Vespillo, is no longer held,206 but the high standing of this unknown woman is undisputable.) The steps taken to support her husband are an intriguing example of female public action. During the second triumvirate (and in particular during the civil war) she sustained her husband, obliged to flee, 202

App., BCiv. 4.32–33 (transl White). Women have no part mh,te avrch/j mh,te timh/j mh,te strathgi,aj mh,te th/j politei,aj. 203 See OSGOOD, “Eloquence”, 525–551, noting the limitation of free speech during the second triumvirate. 204 App., BCiv. 4.34, emphases added. 205 CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053; ILS 8393; A. GORDON, “New Fragment”, 223–226; WISTRAND, Laudatio (1976). See the excellent discussion by HEMELRIJK, “Masculinity and Femininity”, 185–197. G. HORSLEY, “A more than perfect wife”, 33–36 focuses rather on the domestic virtues of Turia, and pays no attention to her public actions. The relevance of the Laudatio Turiae and the association between wealth and authority has been remarked already by SPICQ, Épîtres I, 420. 206 For the “real” Turia’s support to her husband, Q. Lucretius Vespillo: Val. Max. 6.7.2.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

382

Women on the public stage

by entreating the authorities and providing him with financial support, ultimately with her gold and jewels (“ornamentis [vitam meam instruxisti] cum omnem aurum margaritaquae corpori”, II,2a–3a). Eventually she saved his life, provided him with advice and with a place to hide and later on, following the edict of Octavian, she promoted his rehabilitation. This unknown woman does not stand alone. Several wealthy women are known to have provided political and financial backing to their banned husbands. Such is: Terentia, to whom the exiled Cicero expresses his gratitude in his letters; Ovid’s wife, whom he encourages to plead his cause before the authorities; or Fulvia, who beseeches the influential men not to declare Marc Antony a public enemy.207 Appian records similar cases when women used their jewellery and money, as well as their influence to save their husband.208 It seems very probable that the political turmoil of the civil war produced many comparable situations, when the lives or interests of more or less prominent men, who had fallen into disgrace, were defended by their wives. “Turia” is emblematic for such interventions. What matters here is that women’s disposal over economic means could provide immediate relief to their exiled husbands and facilitate their influence before political authorities, used again to the benefit of these men. The use of financial assets to save a husband from financial distress was not limited to elite women.209 In the end, female influence resulting from wealth is assessed differently, according to the circumstances.210 The traditional identification of femini207 Cic., Fam. 14.1–4; Ovid, Trist. 4.3.71–73; 5.2.37–40; 5.14.15–21: “rerum sola es tutela mearum”, 15; also 1.3.79–102; 1.6.5–8 on her loyalty; Pont. 3.1.31–46; App., BCiv. 3.51; Plutarch is much more negative about her authoritarian way (Ant., 30.3–4; compare 10,3 for Fulvia’s unfemininity and rule over him). See the discussion by HEMELRIJK, “Masculinity and Femininity”, 190–193. For a complex analysis of the marriage of Cicero and Terentia: CLAASSEN, “Documents”, 208–232. 208 App., BCiv. 4.39–40, 48 (Acilius is saved by his wife who bribes the soldiers with her jewellery; Virginius by his wife’s money). On devoted wives who defended the life and interests of their husband: Val. Max. 6.7.2–3 (Turia, and Sulpicia, wife of Lentulus Cruscellio). See HEMELRIJK, “Masculinity and Femininity”, 190. For other examples of women saving their husbands from various situations of distress (Fortunata in Petr., Sat. 76; Plotina, in Apul., Met. 7.6–7, described as “rarae fidei atque singularis pudicitiae femina, quae decimo partus stipendio viri familiam fundaverat, spretis atque contemptis urbicae luxuriae deliciis”; Servilia, daughter of Barea Soranus, proconsul of Asia, charged during Nero, cf. Tac., Ann. 16.31): BERG, “Wearing Wealth”, 35, 40. Yet, in the latter case, Servilia uses jewels not to save her father, but to consult the oracles about his fate, and she fails to save him. 209 Although a late example, see the petition of an Aurelia Sophia to Flavius Valerius, defensor of Oxyrhynchus (458 CE), against her husband, who wronged her, whereas she had honoured his debts toward his father using the articles of her dowry and the nuptial gift, no. 297, in Select Papyri II, 304/305–306/307. 210 HEMELRIJK, “Masculinity and Femininity”, 191–194. The image of Fulvia is so negative because her deeds are recorded from the perspective of Marc Antony’s political adversaries, and not from that of a concerned husband, as in the case of “Turia”.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

383

nity with domesticity, retirement and lack of authority largely contributes to the negative view of women like Fulvia, whose actions are described in terms of a gender role reversal. Conversely, the assignment of typically feminine virtues to “Turia”, otherwise displaying “male” qualities, prevents the censure of her acts as unfeminine and indecent. She is described as domestica, bona, lanificia, religious without superstition, manifesting pietas toward her family, characterised by pudicitia, opsequium, facilitas and, not uninterestingly, she is said to be dressed in inconspicuous attire.211 Once more, a wealthy matron is described as fully dedicated to her family, having no claim to her own property and displaying domestic virtues. Her modest attire only confirms her self-effacement. 4.3.3.5 Summary Two texts in 1 Timothy, 2,9–10 and 5,6 advise women against lavish adornment and self-indulgent lifestyle. Instead they are recommended to embrace a modest, unassuming way of life and to abide by traditional gender roles, especially motherhood (2,15; 5,14). The immediate context of both texts demands women to give up involvement in ecclesial roles that would place them in the public sphere, such as teaching in the community (2,11–12) or house calls possibly involving informal teaching (5,13). The exercise of authority is explicitly disallowed in 2,12 and implicitly contested in the derogatory account on the activity of widows (5,13). This investigation has looked into the topos of female beautification and wealth, attempting to explain the association between apparently unrelated manifestations like adorning or self-indulgent lifestyle, exercise of authority and public roles, discernible in these two texts. The topic of female adornment and display of wealth is remarkably frequent in a broad variety of ancient sources: moral exhortations, sacred laws, sumptuary legislation, or laws controlling ownership rights. A closer look at these texts shows that adornment is not addressed merely from an ethical perspective. Beautification, especially when involving costly articles, has an economic dimension and social consequences. A number of texts show that gold, pearls, expensive clothes, or other luxury articles are a source and symbolic expression of wealth, insignia marking out a woman’s status. Wealth provides women with undesired independence and authority. 211 Laudatio Turiae 1,30–33. She is devoted to her husband to the point of offering him the divorce in view of their childless marriage, promising to love her husband’s children as her own (2,26–40). She gives up any claim of deciding about her own inheritance, which is placed under the custody of her husband (1,37–40).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

384

Women on the public stage

A second type of texts shows the constant endeavour to check women’s ownership rights and display of wealth. Many passages associate female wealth and authority. Such association thwarts the authority normally exercised by men in the household and in the public sphere. That is why men are discouraged to marry above their means, risking to lose control over wives. Politicians are deterred from permitting women’s public display of wealth that would undermine social order, based on male authority. Moralists dissuade women from wearing and cherishing expensive items and encourage them to prefer virtues expressing self-effacement. Assets are accepted only if they are controlled by the husband and serve his promotion or rescue. The intimate link between wealth, status and authority, expressed in such a broad variety of sources explains why the restriction on female adornment in 1 Tim 2,9–10 is immediately followed by their exclusion from public functions and authority (2,11–12). Similarly, the admonition to widows against a self-indulgent lifestyle, obviously presupposing the financial resources for such standard of living (that hardly come from church charity), suggests that widows are feared to gain authority. The ideal woman is unassuming, inconspicuous, disdainful of wealth and dedicated to her family. Women who strive for wealth, public visibility and power and challenge male authority are worthy of blame. These connections show that the censure of better-off women in 1 Timothy eventually aims at restricting their influence in the community. 4.3.4 Additional reasons for women’s exclusion from public religious roles 4.3.4.1 A Jewish influence? As extensively shown (ĺ4.2.4.2–3), women were accepted and needed actors of the public religious sphere in the Greco-Roman world. They served in a multitude of priesthoods, some of which were of considerable religious and civic importance. Wherever we would locate the PE geographically, the exclusion of women from public religious roles is at odds with Greco-Roman practice. This exclusion is sometimes explained with the influence of the Jewish heritage.212 Jewish religion was among the few in antiquity that had no female priesthood, at least according to biblical testimonies.213 Since 212

ROLOFF, 1 Tim, 137; YOUNG, Theology, 114. The reasons were numerous. The most important is probably the male representation of the divine and the inexistence of female divinities in “official” Judaism. This is not to say that worship of female deities was unknown in early, popular Jewish religious practice. See DEVER, Did God Have a Wife? (2005). However by the time Christianity emerged, Jewish religion knew only one 213

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

385

Gentile Christianity was the inheritor of Judaism in what concerns its Scriptures and to a degree its worship, it seems likely that the image of a single male deity ministered to by male priests and the exclusion of women from Jewish priesthood could contribute to the shaping of the pattern of exclusively male Christian officials. However, the situation is more complicated, and the theory that a Jewish influence played a decisive role in women’s exclusion from teaching is not as convincing as at first glance.214 On the one hand, there is very little proof for a Jewish influence in the PE, except for the few references to Scriptures. What is more important, epigraphic evidence shows that especially outside Palestine, notably in the synagogues of Asia Minor, Crete, Thrace, Italy and Lybia, Jewish women were not only benefactors, but filled in several responsible roles.215 They could be heads of synagogue (archisynagǀgos, archisynagǀgissa), leaders (archƝgissa), elders (presbytera / presbyterƝsa) or mothers of the synagogue (mƝtƝr synagogƝs).216 Even more intriguing are the inscriptions that designate women as hierisa.217 Especially the functions of hierisa and archisynagǀgos raise the question of women possibly exhorting and teaching the community and reading the Torah in public, or in private to (illiterate) men.218 An unprejudiced evaluation of the epigraphic material reminds us of how little we actually know about the organisation, life and offices of diaspora Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman period. Trebilco has argued with good reason that the leadership roles assumed by Jewish women in Asia Minor were congruent with the prominence of (non-Jewish) women in contemporary society.219 Therefore it would be simplistic to argue male God. The incompatibility of the Jewish priesthood with women’s ritual impurity was probably also a significant cause. On the reasons for the lack of a female priesthood: MARSMAN, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 536–544, 569, 613–615. 214 Rightly critical Merz, Selbstauslegung, 303–305. 215 The issue is extensively discussed by BROOTEN, Women Leaders (1982); also TREBILCO, Jewish Communities, 104–113. 216 Older scholarship has taken these titles to be purely honorific or held on account of the husband. I do not detail the counterarguments, but see the careful discussion of Brooten and Trebilco. 217 BROOTEN, Women Leaders, 73–99. The three inscriptions are those of Tell el-Yahudiyyeh / Leontopolis (1 cent. BCE or CE, one Marin), Rome (Monteverde catacomb, 3rd ot 4th cent., Gaudentia) and the Galilean Beth She‘arim (4th cent., Maria). The term is considered the translation of kǀhenet (daughter or wife of a priest). But the father of Maria, although mentioned, is not referred to as a priest, and a husband does not appear. The detailed discussion by Brooten raises the question about women’s cultic roles (Leontopolis) or functions in the synagogue. 218 The latter is certain (mSukk 3.10) The former may be suggested by the inclusion of women in the quorum of the minyan (t.Meg. 4.11; Meg. 23a); these passages continue nonetheless with women’s prohibition from reading the Torah. If the rule in these passages is indeed composite, with an older initial part, completed with the interdiction in the Tannaitic period, the prohibition may have changed an earlier practice, when women did read the Torah, at least in certain communities. See BROOTEN, Women Leaders, 94–95 (hierisa), 28, 32 (the archisynagǀgos). 219 TREBILCO, Jewish Communities, 125–126.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

386

Women on the public stage

that the author of 1 Timothy was influenced by Jewish practice to prohibit women from teaching and exerting authority in the church. It seems that at least some Jewish communities actually followed the custom of contemporary society and assigned responsible roles to (better-off) women. The author of the Pastorals decided otherwise. 4.3.4.2 Teaching versus ritual Greek and Roman priests of both sexes were essentially involved in culticritual activities (ĺ4.2.4). Verbal expressions included prayers and supplications, the theologia and, more importantly, inspired speech. The latter was frequently associated with women bearing the title of prophetis or promantis. This means that female priests generally performed ritual tasks, although in some cases they could also carry out a form of authoritative speech. Did ancient priest(esse)s teach? The evidence for it is scant.220 Diogenes Laertius, following Aristoxenos, reports a tradition about Themistoclea, a priestess of Delphi from whom Pythagoras seems to have drawn his ethical teachings.221 Priests of mystery religions must have introduced initiates to the rituals and their meaning.222 To be sure, very little is known about the beliefs of ancient religions and their transmission. Greco-Roman religions seem to have been less interested in doctrine proper, compared to Judaism or Christianity. Teaching was probably not the central task of priests. The opposite is true for Christian officials. The PE have few references to rituals, compared to teaching. Priesthood properly speaking, just as sacrificial rites, are absent from the New Testament. In the PE the major task of Christian ministers seems to be that of teaching doctrine. Whether the performance of rites like baptism or the celebration of the Eucharist was closely connected to officials is difficult to tell;223 conversely, their role of teachers is emphatic.

220

A teaching role of priestesses is envisaged by CONNELLY, Portrait, 219–220. fhsi. de. kai. vAristo,xenoj ta. plei/sta tw/n hvqikw/n dogma,twn labei/n to.n Puqago,ranȱ para. Qemistoklei,aj th/j evn Delfoi/j. Diog. Laert. 8.8. 222 For example see the introduction of Apuleius to the mysteries of Isis, Met. 11.21–22. The inscription from Thyatira, set by a group of initiates in honour of priestess Ammias has her say: “if anyone wants to learn the truth from me (to. avlhqe.j maqei/n para. evmou/), let him pray at(?) the altar for whatever he wants and he will get it, via a vision, during nighttime and day.” (GUARDUCCI, EG IV.119–120, cf. NewDocs 4, 136). She is possibly envisaged here as a teacher of the truth, a postmortem continuation of the role she had in her lifetime. 223 On presiding at the Eucharistic celebration in household churches as the attribution of the head of the household: KLAUCK, “Hausgemeinde”, 17; TIWALD, “Entwicklungslinien”, 127–128. 221

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Women in the ekklƝsia

387

4.3.4.3 A Roman influence? Whereas the Jewish influence on earliest Christianity is commonly taken for granted, there is relatively little discussion of the impact of Roman cultural views and sociopolitical structures at this stage, as the relationship between imperial rule and Christian communities is more commonly thought to be one of antagonism (as e.g. in the “Paul and Politics” group). Others, in particular with respect to the PE, would argue that the Roman social and cultural influence contributed to the corruption of Christian morals.224 Some authors have noted that Roman political structures and legislation had a significant influence on the way Christian communities defined their identity. Analysing the reasons that lead to the success of Christianity, Leif Vaage has noted the extent to which the discourse of earliest Christianity incorporated key elements of the imperial discourse and adopted some of the social structures of the empire, including the patriarchal household.225 Karl Thraede remarked how the Roman imperial discourse on authority and ruling, the concern with the patria potestas, articulated both in the political sphere and in the household, was integrated into Christian social ethics and station codes.226 Johannes Hofmann227 and Lilian Portefaix228 noted the impact of Roman legislation and mentalities on the situation of Christian women in the late first and early second century. Hofmann insists especially on the ecclesial reception of the imperial structures of administration, representation and communication during the process of institution formation. This influence shaped the way in which the public sphere was conceived and lead to the exclusion of women from ecclesial attributions and to the reassessment of the relationship between sexes.229 Portefaix focuses on the impact of Roman 224

A fundamental argument in WINTER’s Roman Wives. VAAGE, “Why Christianity Succeeded (in) the Roman Empire”, 253–278. 226 “Haustafeln”, 365–366. 227 HOFMANN, “Christliche Frauen”, 307–308. 228 PORTEFAIX, “Good Citizenship”, 147–158. 229 HOFMANN, “Christliche Frauen”, 307–308. “M.E. macht sich hier also ein Inkulturationsvorgang spezieller Art bemerkbar, indem sich die kleinasiatische Kirche des ausgehenden 2. Jh.s im Zuge ihrer institutionellen regionalen und überregionalen Vernetzung auf die Rezeption römischimperialer Verwaltungs-, Repräsentations- und Kommunikationsstrukturen einläßt und damit auch auf eine Frauen aus der Offentlichkeit ausschließende Reorganisation der Geschlechterbeziehungen; etwa gleichzeitig nimmt sie – bestärkt durch eine im ausgehenden 1. oder frühen 2. Jh. in Kleinasien aufkommende misogyne oi=koj-Ekklesiologie und darin bestätigt durch die den traditionellen oi=kojRahmen sprengenden Gestalten der fiktiven Thekla und der realen Prophetinnen der ,Neuen Prophetieǥ– ihre ursprünglich zumindest im Rahmen des Oikos für Frauen offene Position zurück.” “Wenn aber das Leben der Kirche [...] eine beständige Inkulturation des Christentums in die jeweilige Gegenwart und damit auch eine beständige Reorganisation der Geschlechterbeziehungen impliziert, dann dürfte auch in der Kirche des 20. Jh.s eine derartige Neuordnung bzw. eine – unter 225

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

388

Women on the public stage

legislation on marriage and procreation on the situation of Christian women (ĺ3.6.2). It suffices to recall that many expectations concerning women – the importance assigned to marriage, the acceptance of motherhood and even the demand that younger widows remarry – come closer to the principles of (post-)Augustan policy than to the lifestyle advocated by Paul. Ulrike Wagener argued that the order implied by the oikos-ecclesiology was congruous with the conservative ethos of the Roman elites and was meant to advance Christians’ social recognition by these male pagan elites.230 One may doubt that this was a deliberate aim, but its consistency with Roman views on the hierarchy of the familia is beyond question. The cultural differences between the Greek East and Rome concerning the public presence of women and the tenure of offices are conspicuous. In Asia Minor the presence of (elite) women on the public stage was more significant (ĺ4.2), as, even if they continued to be barred from political offices, they could hold certain magistracies, unlike their Roman peers, who were outrightly excluded from all offices. In the sphere of religion, more specifically of female (inspired) speech, the difference is also striking, as Roman religion had nothing comparable to the sanctuaries where female prophetes uttered culturally sanctioned authoritative oracles in the name of a deity. It is therefore conceivable that in the Christian ekklƝsia, at least as imagined by the PE, Roman mentalities concerning the roles of women gradually prevailed over the more inclusive perspective of the Greek East.

Berücksichtigung der modernen gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen vorgenommene – Neuordnung der kirchlichen Rolle der Frau vonnöten sein.” 230 WAGENER, Ordnung, 243–244.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Conclusion

389

4.4 Conclusion Literary sources have a marked prescriptive, ideological character; they defend the division of spaces and the corresponding division of roles. However, the main contention of this chapter is that reality, even in the most traditionally-minded societies, was much more complex. The investigation has addressed the contrast between ideology and reality in ancient Greek and Roman societies and, by way of analogy, in the PE. (1) The first part of this chapter has shown that divergent opinions could surface even in ancient literary sources, in the most conservative societies. Plato’s philosophical speculations and, in a different manner, even Aristophanes’ comedies attest a discussion over gender roles and their social and political implications, emerging already in the classical period. The comedies of Aristophanes and the writings of Plato not only represent an alternative, comic or utopian (i.e. fictitious) society, where women participate in public life, but also draw from contemporary experiences of non-Athenian societies. At the wake of the Hellenistic period, Aristotle discards Plato’s views on female education and public roles. His views on gender roles, on the hierarchic structure of the oikos and on the interdependence between oikos and polis are the theoretical foundation of a social model that will endure over many centuries. Thus Neopythagoreans, a Tacitus or a Plutarch will argue very much in the same way about gender roles. Aristotle’s views will even set a pattern for Christian household codes.1 Stoics (Musonius, to a lesser degree Hierocles), will make slight concessions, not to women’s public presence, but to their participation in activities traditionally assigned to men – learning philosophy and labouring outside the household. (2) The second part of the chapter has addressed the contrast between ideology and reality in Hellenistic and Roman societies, focusing on the public presence of women in three specific fields: daily life, public roles and religion. (a) Epigraphic and papyrological evidence has shown that in daily life (especially non-elite) women were present outside the private sphere, exercising certain professions, socialising and holding some legal and financial responsibilities. (b) Elite women acquired significant social visibility, foremost in the Greek East and, in a different manner, in Rome as well. In Asia Minor, from the Hellenistic period onward and even more from the first century CE, we find an increasing number of female benefactors, often stressing 1

BALCH, Wives (a main idea of the book); VERNER, Household, 30, 32, 84–85.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

390

Women on the public stage

that they provided for the welfare of their community from their own resources. Certain prominent and costly magistracies are filled by women belonging to important families. Scholarship is divided about the causes (financial reasons, legal and social changes) and the importance of this phenomenon. With the exception of Hellenistic queens, women do not hold political offices proper, involving decision-making or management of financial resources. Yet, this does not question the prestige and social prominence of these magistracies. The familial dimension of euergetism and office-holding is rightly emphasised, but it applies to men as well. In Rome the situation is somewhat different, as women cannot hold civic offices. Deprived of political rights and excluded from offices, elite women acquire influence due to their wealth, status and social connections. They thereby manage to shape the life of the communities or of the individuals over which they exert patronage, to promote cultural achievements and to influence, to a degree, political decisions. Again, wealth and status are decisive conditions. However, Roman women do not receive the same formal recognition as their peers in Western Asia Minor, who are entitled to hold magistracies. At a lesser level, in both East and West, non-public associations constitute another space where even non-elite women can hold offices and exert euergetism. This setting is all the more relevant as it is connected to persons of lower status, whose associations and actions nonetheless replicate the relations of the polis. (c) Women’s active presence in the religious sphere is quasi-habitual. There is broad evidence for priestesses and other cult-officials across time and space. Public priesthoods carry significant civic importance. In the Greek East priestesses frequently hold civic offices and act as benefactors. Whereas in major cults priestesses are most often recruited from the elites, smaller cults or religious associations are open to non-elite women as well. Most priesthoods entail cultic-ritual roles, but in some cults female officials utter supplications, theologiai and prophetic speeches. Inspired-prophetic speech entails significant authority. These three domains show that, in spite of the enduring ideological separation of spaces and roles up to the imperial period, real life is more gender-inclusive. What matters most is the importance assigned to female priesthoods in public cults and religious associations. On the other hand, although women are present in various ways in the public sphere, their epigraphic or literary representation focuses on traditional qualities like modesty, domesticity and dedication to the family. (3) The social and religious life of Christian communities is similarly complex. This aspect is: (a) highlighted by the diachronic examination of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Conclusion

391

Pauline communities, and (b) it is reflected in an indirect manner in the PE themselves. (a) A diachronic exploration of the ministries in the Pauline communities indicates that (beyond geographic diversity) significant changes occur over time, with the progressive institutionalisation of the church. This leads to the gradual recession of charismatic ministries, notably of prophecy. It is also possible that the Pastorals deliberately pass over them in silence. The other major change concerns the involvement of women in ministry. At an earlier stage women participate actively in the life of the Pauline ekklƝsiai. They host household churches, prophesy, teach, receiving appellations like co-worker, apostle, labourer in the Lord, prostatis and hold local offices like that of diakonos. Such participation becomes, with few exceptions, unconceivable in the PE. The contrast between the Pauline epistles and the Pastorals is essentially one between reality and ideology. The author wishes to limit women’s involvement as much as possible and foremost, to bar them from teaching. Yet, these prohibitions make sense when they refer to an existing practice. This view is strengthened by the allusion to traditions about Prisca, or about Lois and Eunice, which, although subordinated to rhetorical purposes, evoke the role of women in the transmission of faith in the family and in the community. The author deals with female ministries still extant in his time, like those of female diakonoi and of dedicated widows, in an ambiguous or outrightly negative manner. Yet, the pains he takes to restrict the number and the activities of widows suggests their influence. These ministries continue women’s involvement in a variety of tasks in the lifetime of Paul. The practice was recognised by the apostle and additionally sustained by: (a) theological considerations, and (b) sociocultural influences. (a) For some Christian groups, baptism and the gifts of the Spirit seemed to relativise gender and social boundaries. (b) Non-Jewish Christians came from urban societies of the Greek East where, since the Hellenistic age and even more during the imperial period, women were present on the public stage as priestesses, as holders of magistracies and benefactors. Wealth and social status contributed strongly to this presence. Nonetheless, by means of pseudepigraphy, the authority of Paul will be used here to limit as much as possible female participation in the public life of the church. This restriction will also receive: (a) a theological reinforcement, from the narrative of creation and fall, and (b) a cultural backing based on the division of spaces and roles and on an honour and shame mentality. In the same context (display of) wealth will be censured, as wealth obviously constitutes a source of authority. In sum, the discourse of the PE is essentially an ideological discourse attempting to shape reality.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

392

Women on the public stage

Discussing the regulations of 1 Tim 2,9–15 and the debate over women’s teaching role in the social and cultural context of Asia Minor (Ephesus), Witherington emphasises with good reason that the public religious roles of women in contemporary society had some bearing on the expectations of Christian women.2 The point concerning the hopes of Christian women is appropriate (even when their status was not entirely comparable to that of the local elites). Witherington is also right that the public religious functions of women are not countercultural.3 On the other hand, he obviously mitigates the prohibition in 1 Tim 2,12, inaccurately limiting it to women who did not receive appropriate instruction in the Christian doctrine. This optimistic assessment is inadequate precisely because the exclusion of Christian women from public religious roles is at odds with the access of contemporary women to such roles in the Greco-Roman world. In this the PE are close to contemporary traditionalist ethics that revive the ideological exclusion of women from the public sphere and confine them to the household.

2 Letters, 118–221, adding that Christian women filled in various ministries up to the 6th century. “[T]hese inscriptions also make very evident that more than a few high-status women in Ephesus who became Christians would have expected to play important religious roles in the Christian community in that city, based on the roles that women played in other religions in that locale. These inscriptions not only shed light on one of the problems being addressed in a text such as 1 Timothy 2:8–15 (high-status women who expect to play a religious role in the Christian meetings but have not yet been fully or properly instructed in the apostolic teaching), but also they reveal something of the rhetorical strategy of our authors. They are saying that a woman can exercise and exhibit her piety in culturally appropriate ways within the Christian community and exhibit the same virtues that they would be praised for in other religious contexts in Ephesus. In other words, they have the same opportunities in the Christian sect, as they do in others to manifest their gifts and grace and virtues, if they would but submit to and learn the apostolic teaching” (220–221). 3 WITHERINGTON, Letters, 221, n. 183.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

5. Final Conclusions

This work has addressed the wider cultural and social landscape that shaped the ecclesiology of the PE and the definition of social roles and ecclesial ministries, proposing a contextual reading of the PE that comes close to the “ecological” or environmental approach advanced by Abraham Malherbe. I have focused on the Greco-Roman environment, since the PE belong to a branch of Christianity emerging within a Greco-Roman society and culture, in which Christian identity starts to be defined through delineation from its Jewish roots. In line with the environmental approach of Malherbe I consider that Greco-Roman influences were not (always) mediated by Hellenistic Judaism; both Jews and Christians living in the Greek East shared the same cultural context. This contextual or environmental standpoint entails two consequences for the PE. First, I argue that the PE are not writings with a contingent Greco-Roman background, but are an integral part of the (written and oral) culture of their time. Second, my reading differs from sourcecritical or tradition-critical approaches that assume a genealogical relationship between writings or traditions. I do not claim that the PE depend on the literary and epigraphic sources quoted in this work, but I regard both the PE and the cited sources as expressions of a similar cultural environment. The interpretation of the station codes and church orders relies on the historical-critical exegesis of these passages and on an intertextual reading that reveals the reinterpretation of biblical traditions (Gen) and Pauline texts. Through a pluridisciplinary approach that incorporates perspectives from classical studies, by attempting a critical reading of ancient sources and by focusing on the discourse of Greek and Roman authors instead of taking their assertions as descriptors of reality, I have attempted to read the PE as part of the ancient discourse on social and gender roles. This critical reading has disclosed the ideological character of the PE. The critique of ideology has allowed a distinction between reality and discourses attempting to alter reality. It also shed a different light on issues like “orthodoxy” and “heresy”, or on the alleged emancipatory ventures of women and slaves that would have endangered the community. Attention to the expressions of honour and shame mentality has underlined the ideological features of the PE even more. Insights from the social study of earliest Christianity have shed additional light on the mentalities and the ecclesiology promoted by the PE.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

394

Final conclusions

Particularly helpful was the research on private associations. This illuminated not only the social structure of the ekklƝsia, but also the way in which a community may define its structures by replicating both the private and the public sphere. These apprehensions explained why the ecclesiology of the PE does not equate the ekklƝsia with the private space (the oikos), as usually thought, but incorporates features from the private and the public sphere. Attention to the metaphoric use of “oikos” in antiquity revealed the way in which an image commonly associated with the private sphere could be used to define much larger social entities, like the private association, the polis or the cosmos. This placed the ecclesiology of the PE in a new light. It showed that the “household of God” was not an oikos, but a public space – a Christian polis – whose order and structure received divine legitimacy. That is why I have analysed the manner in which the PE defined social and gender roles, as well as the authority to teach, in the context of ancient views that stipulate the division of spaces and roles and connect the right to exert authority and to speak in public to certain conditions. These considerations on methods and perspectives lead to number of conclusions. (1) The ecclesiology of the PE involves a considerable shift when compared to the genuine epistles of Paul. Most significantly, the metaphor of the “body of Christ”, entailing complementarity and cooperation, disappears. The ekklƝsia of the followers of Christ, a community designated by a term with political connotations, is explicitly (1 Tim 3,15) and implicitly (2 Tim 2,20– 21; Tit 1,7) described as the oi=koj qeou/. The oikos of God becomes the central ecclesiological metaphor of the PE. The theophoric appellative assigns to this metaphor a divine, almost cosmic dimension. The oi=koj qeou/ is a double metaphor, entailing the image of household and that of building (temple). Whereas a comparison of the ekklƝsia to a building or temple of God is consistent with Paul and may have an OT (LXX) background mediated by Paul, that of the “household of God” may not be traced back to Paul, nor the OT. The closest parallel may be found in Eph 2,19–20, a passage inspired by Paul, yet it takes his view of the church further, by combining images from the spheres of polis and oikos in a manner typical for Greco-Roman thought. The oikos-metaphor of the PE and even the image of the “household of God” are in fact closely related to the metaphorical use of oikos in the Greco-Roman world. (2) In Greco-Roman antiquity oikos is used metaphorically for larger social and religious entities – the cosmos, the polis and the religious associations. The cosmos is the oikos and polis of (the) god(s), joining humans under divine rule. The polis is an enlarged oikos, and political leaders are

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Final conclusions

395

expected to prove their ability to govern it, through the successful management of their own oikos. The cultic association is a replica of the household and of the polis, sometimes explicitly referred to as the oikos of gods. This metaphorical use of oikos substantiates what emerges from the social analysis of earliest Christianity, namely that in spite of its designation as oikos the ecclesial community is not a household properly speaking and it cannot be identified with the private sphere. It is a religious society with statutes and offices, and in a sense, a public religious space (which is not, of course, the sphere of public cults). It is also a cosmic/divine household in which rules are rooted in divine authority. The ekklƝsia is the oikos and polis of God. This view of the ekklƝsia illuminates the regulations concerning the admission to or the exclusion from ministries, as well as the requirements regarding officials. Just like in the public and associative sphere, here too, officials are expected to be able to manage well their own household (i.e. to rule their wife, children and slaves) and to display an honourable, irreproachable behaviour. The closest approximation of such community is the religious association. Such association is centred on the common worship of a deity, draws its members from various (generally middling and lower) social strata and replicates the oikos through fictive kinship and hierarchy and the polis through its offices and its institutionalised authority. (3) In keeping with this ecclesiology, church orders and station codes incorporate the concept of the division of spaces and roles, as well as the social hierarchy proper to the oikos and the polis. Because the ekklƝsia is a public space, offices entailing authority and public speech are assigned exclusively to men. Women, though members of the ekklƝsia, are relegated to the private sphere, are demanded to embrace traditional female roles (as submissive wives and dedicated mothers) and are excluded from authority and public speech. Social hierarchy is consolidated. The better-off are expected to act as benefactors of their community and have better chances to accede to offices. The authority of the heads of household over their oikos, in particular over slaves is strengthened, at the cost of Christian brother(sister)hood. Station codes express the contemporary ideal of honourable behaviour for men and women, for heads of household (officials) and slaves. Male leaders have to be irreproachable. Women have to be chaste and inconspicuous. Slaves should not challenge the honour of their master. Further, as a religious association, as a polis within the polis, the ekklƝsia is also expected to acknowledge the political order of the Empire, at least as long as civic loyalty securing a peaceful existence is not incompatible with Christian fidelity. In sum, Christians should submit to the authority of the head of the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

396

Final conclusions

household in the oikos, to the authority of recognised officials in the ekklƝsia and to civic authorities and imperial rule in the polis. (4) Teaching and leadership are prominent ecclesial roles regulated by church orders. The authority to teach and exercise leadership is connected with a number of factors among which orthodoxy, institutional position and male gender are the most important. (a) As straightforward as it may seem, the contrast between orthodoxy and heterodoxy is in fact quite problematic. The very use of these categories is questionable, just as the common assumption that the opponents teach (a form of Gnostic) heresy, or that women have to be silenced because they teach heterodoxy. Actually the PE reflect a competition between different interpretations of Paul. The “opponents” probably embrace an ascetic lifestyle inspired by Paul and seem to admit that belonging to Christ relativises gender and social inequalities. By way of contrast the PE construe “orthodoxy” as adherence to norms of conventional morality and social conformity. Christians should live an orderly life in this world, in a respectable marriage, they should abide by traditional roles and respect the authority of recognised officials. (b) “Orthodoxy” is intimately connected with the authority of the established leaders, strengthened through a fictitious apostolic institution. Continuity in tradition, secured by the continuity of reliable officials who hand it down to subsequent generations is an essential aspect defended by the PE. Consequently those who are not recognised as belonging to the establishment are not entitled to teach. (c) The arguments for women teaching “heterodoxy” are disputable. Moreover, the author does not forbid particular women from spreading heresy, but prohibits women as such to teach. Conversely, whereas some male heterodox teachers are explicitly named, men in general are not subject to a similar interdiction. This means that (male) gender conditions the authority to teach at least as much as orthodoxy. Public teaching is an expression of authority, a form of authoritative speech. As in contemporary society only men are entitled to hold authority and to speak in public, female teachers challenge this social convention. (d) Although men are not explicitly and generally prohibited to teach, they are entitled to teach only if they are admitted to the ranks of officials. The polemical attacks on “heterodox” teachers discredit those who are not recognised as part of the establishment, or who propose an ascetic lifestyle. Moreover, there is a good chance that officials come from the better-off in the community, as suggested by the qualification lists and by the fact that the authority assigned to officials is incompatible with the submission required from slaves. Thus it seems that, although less restricted when compared to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Final conclusions

397

women, men are not altogether permitted to teach. Institutionalisation, paralleled by the decline of charismatic ministries and by the concentration of teaching and leadership in the same office limits the access of men to teaching. (5) Notwithstanding social marginalisation and political exclusion, women are present on the public stage in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, as benefactors and holders of certain magistracies and, more importantly, they are accepted actors of the public and associative religious life throughout the Empire. Women hold numerous priesthoods, and in Greek (but not in Roman) religion the speech of inspired female cult officials has a considerable authority. As opposed to this habit, the PE exclude women from the most important domain of the public life to which they normally have access. The exclusion of Christian women from religious roles is in a sense at odds with contemporary practice. In addition, the restrictive regulations of the PE go against the participation of women in ecclesial functions in the lifetime of Paul and probably even during the time when the epistles are written, as suggested by the ongoing ministry of female diakonoi and dedicated widows. The contrast between the exclusion of women from public religious roles on the one hand, and their public presence in contemporary society and in the Christian community on the other, shows that the regulations of the PE have an ideological character. They do not reflect reality, but attempt to alter an existing situation. With respect to the participation of women in public religious life as cult officials the PE express a more conservative position than that held in contemporary society. (6) There are several possible reasons for such decisions. One of the views most frequently advanced is that heretics of some sort endangered the church and women were involved in spreading heresy. In this volume I have shown that both assumptions are questionable. According to another too facile supposition Christians were simply responding to external criticism. Leaving aside the lack of evidence, this argument implies that the views of the author were otherwise quite different from those of his society. Had he not been forced by external critique to restrict the role of women and slaves, he would have had a positive attitude toward these categories. The entire line of reasoning, the central place assigned to submission and its religious backing are arguments to the contrary. The environmental approach shows conversely that the author was deeply rooted in the society and culture of his time. The delay of the parousia must have had a more important role to play, especially if one compares the correlations between an eschatological perspective and views on social roles in the genuine epistles and in the PE. Institutionalisation, in its turn partly motivated by the delay of the parousia,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

398

Final conclusions

was another major factor that naturally lead to the delineation of roles and ministries. Yet, a historical approach to this phenomenon should avoid deterministic explanations. Further, the influence of the Jewish heritage concerning the exclusion of women (male priests ministering to a male God) has some plausibility, but the hypothesis is weakened by the minimal influence of Judaism on this branch of Christianity and by the religious roles of women in Hellenistic Jewish communities. The particularities of Christian religion, namely the shrinkage of the ritual dimension and the absence of priesthoods are more significant factors. Inspired speech, a common attribution of female religious officials in Greek religion, still accepted in the lifetime of Paul, tends to disappear or is no longer approved. The PE focus instead on teaching doctrinal contents, a typically male enterprise in antiquity. The PE also reflect the pervasive cultural fear of women appropriating authority by means of wealth. The impact of more restrictive Roman laws and mentalities may also be surmised. In the end though, a traditionalist position which intends to preserve social order and cultural conventions does not necessarily require objective, external reasons. As mentioned in the introduction, this volume leaves out the implications of this contextual analysis of station codes and church orders for systematic theology, canon law and church practice. It does not explicitly address the meaning of concepts like orthodoxy, apostolic succession or ordained ministry, or the (il)legitimacy of women’s exclusion from ministry. Even so, a deeper comprehension of the cultural and social environment of the PE may raise awareness about the extent to which our view of the church as an institution, of its structures and norms is shaped by ancient mentalities and by cultural conventions. We may agree with Oberlinner that “[i]t is difficult to assess retrospectively the necessity and the justification of such decisions at the time. However, those responsible for the[ir] reception may be asked whether they are entitled to invoke the pastoral author when, under changed circumstances, they continue to restrict the competences for preaching and teaching to officials and pass on the restrictive, to a certain extent offending pronouncements on the status of women in the church, as still relevant and timely standards.”1 1

OBERLINNER, “Gemeindeordnung”, 308 (“Die Frage nach der Notwendigkeit und Berechtigung solcher Entscheidungen in der damaligen Situation lässt sich in der Rückschau nur schwer beurteilen. Wohl aber ist an die für die Wirkungsgeschichte Verantwortlichen die Frage zu stellen, ob sie sich auf den pastoralen Autor berufen dürfen, wenn sie in der Folge, bis heute, unter veränderten Bedingungen, sowohl die Engführung auf die auf Gemeindeleiter beschränkte Kompetenz zu Verkündigung und Lehre als auch die restriktiven und z. T. verletzenden Äußerungen zur Stellung der Frau in der Kirche als aktuelle und zeitgemäße Maßstäbe weiter tradieren.”, transl. K.Z.).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Abbreviations Ancient Authors Aesch. Sept. Suppl. Aeschin. Tim. Ambr. Parad. App. Bell. civ. Hist. rom. Apul. Apol. Metam. Aristid. Or. Ar. Ach. Av. Eccl. Lys. Plut. Thesm. Arist. Eth. Nic. Gen. an. [Oec.] Pol. Rhet. [Rhet. Alex.] Athen. Deipn. Aug. Gen. c. Man. Callicr. De dom. felic. Cass. Dio Cic. Att. Brut. Dom. Har. resp. Fam. Fin. Inv. Leg.

Aeschylus Septem contra Thebas (Seven against Thebes) Supplices (Suppliant Women) Aeschines Timarchus Ambrose De paradiso (Paradise) Appian Bella civilia (Civil Wars) Historia romana (Roman History) Apuleius Apologia. Pro se de magia (Apology) Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass) Aristides Orationes Aristophanes Acharnenses (Acharnians) Aves (Birds) Ecclesiazusae (Women of the Assembly) Lysistrata Plutus (Wealth) Thesmophoriazusae (Women at the Thesmophoria Festival) Aristotle Ethica nichomachea (Nicomachean Ethics) De generatione animalium (Generation of Animals) Oeconomica (Economics) Politica (Politics) Rhetorica (Rhetoric) Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (Rhetoric to Alexander) Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (The Learned Banqueters) Augustinus De Genesi contra Manichaeos (On Genesis against the Manicheans) Callicratidas (Kallikratidas) De domi felicitate (Peri. oi;kou euvdaimoni,aj, On the happiness of the household) Cassius Dio Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus) Brutus De domo sua (On his House) De haruspicum responsis (On the Responses of the Haruspices) Epistulae ad familiares (Letters to his friends) De finibus bonorum et malorum (About the Ends of Goods and Evils) De inventione rhetorica De legibus (On the Laws)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

400 Mur. Nat. D. Off. QFr Rep. Colum. Rust. Dem. 36 41 59 Dio Chrys. Or. Diod. Sic. Diog. Laert. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. Diotog. De regn. Epict. Diss. Gnom. Ench. Epic. RS Gnom. Vat. Epit. Eur. Andr. Bacch. El. Heracl. Hipp. IA Med. Phoen. Suppl. Tro. Eus. Hist. eccl. Gai. Inst. Gell. Noct. att. Hdt. Hist. Hes. Op. Theog. Hom. Il. Od. Hor.

Abbreviations Pro Murena (In Defense of Lucius Licinius Murena) De natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) De officiis (On Duties) Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem (Letters to his Brother Quintus) De republica (On the Republic) Columella De re rustica (Agriculture) Demosthenes Pro Phormione (For Phormio) Contra Spudiam (Against Spudias) In Neaeram (Appolodorus against Neaera) Dio Chrysostom Orationes Diodorus Siculus Diogenes Laertius Dionysius Halicarnassensis Antiquitates Romanae (Roman Antiquities) Diotogenes De regno (peri. basilei,aj, Concerning a Kingdom) Epictetus Dissertationes (Discourses) Gnomologium Enchiridion Epicurus Ratae sententiae (Principle Doctrines) Gnomologium Vaticanum (Vatican Sayings) Epitome Euripides Andromache Bacchae (Bacchanals) Electra Heraclidae (Children of Hercules) Hippolytus Iphigenia aulidensis (Iphigeneia at Aulis) Medea Phoenissae (Phoenician Maidens) Supplices (Suppliants) Troades (Daughters of Troy) Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History) Gaius Institutiones Aulus Gellius Noctes atticae (Attic Nights) Herodotus Historiae (Histories) Hesiod Opera et dies (Works and Days) Theogonia (Theogony) Homer Ilias (Iliad) Odyssea (Odyssey) Horace

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Abbreviations Carm. Saec. Sat. Isae. 2 8 Isoc. 1 2 3 10 Jos. Ant. Ap. Bell. Juv. Sat. Luc. Dial. mort. Icar. Fug. Merc. cond. Peregr. Philops. Pisc. Pseudol. Rhet. praec. Lys. 1 2 Liv. M. Aur. Med. Men. Dys. Perik. Sam. Mus. Fr. 3 Fr. 4 Fr. 8 Fr. 12 Fr. 18b Fr. 19 Fr. 20 Okkel. De univ. nat. Orig. Cels. Ov. Am.

401

Carmina (Odes) Carmen saeculare Satirae (Satires) Isaeus Menecles Ciron Isocrates Ad Demonicum (Demonicus) Ad Nicoclem (To Nicocles) Nicocles (Nicocles or The Cyprians) Helenae encomium (Helen) Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae (Antiquities of the Jews) Contra Apionem (Against Apion) Bellum Judaicum (War of the Jews) Juvenal Satirae (Satires) Lucian Dialogi mortuorum (Dialogues of the Dead) Icaromenippus Fugitivi (The Runaways) De mercede conductis potentium familiaribus (On Salaried Posts in Great Houses) De morte Peregrini (The Passing of Peregrinus) Philopseudes (The Lover of Lies) Piscator (The Dead Come to Life, or The Fisherman) Pseudologista (The Mistaken Critic) Rhetorum praeceptor (A Professor of Public Speaking) Lysias Contra Eratosthenem (On the Murder of Eratosthenes) Epitaphios (Funeral Oration) Livy (Titus Livius), Ab urbe condita Marcus Aurelius Meditationes Menander Dyskolos (The Grouch) Perikeiromene (The Girl with her Hair Cut Short) Samia (Girl from Samos) Musonius That Women Should Study Philosophy Should Daughters Receive the Same Education as Boys? That Kings Also Should Study Philosophy On Sexual Indulgence On Food On Clothing and Shelter On Furnishings Okkelos (Occelus Lucanus) De universi natura (Peri. th/j tou/ panto.j fu,sewj, On the Nature of the Universe) Origen Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) Ovid Amores

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

402 Ars Fast. Metam. Pont Paus. Descr. Perict. De mul. harm.

Abbreviations Ars amatoria Fasti Metamorphoses Epistulae ex Ponto Pausanias Graeciae descriptio (Description of Greece) Perictione De mulierum harmonia (Peri. gunaiko.j a`rmoni,aj, On the Harmony of a Woman)

Philo Abr. Cher. Flac. Hypoth. Jos. LA Mos. Op. QG Spec. leg. Philostr. Vit. Apoll. Phint. De mul. mod.

De Abrahamo De cherubim (On the Cherubim) In Flaccum (Against Flaccus) Hypothetica (Apology for the Jews) De Josepho Legum allegoriarum (Allegorical Interpretation) De vita Mosis (Life of Moses) De opificio mundi (On the Creation) Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim (Questions and Answers on Genesis) De specialibus legibus (On the Special Laws) Philostratus Vita Apollonii Tyanae Phintys De mulierum modestia (Peri. gunaiko.j swfrosu,naj, On Woman’s Temperance) Phld. Philodemus Pl. Plato Amat. Amatores (The Lovers / On Philosophy) Ap. Apologia (Apology) Charm. Charmides Euthphr. Euthyphro Leg. Leges (Laws) Menex. Menexenus Plt. Politicus (Statesman) Prt. Protagoras Resp. Respublica (Republic) Symp. Symposium Tim. Timaeus Plaut. Plautus Aul. Aulularia Poen. Poenulus Plb. Polybius Plin. Pliny the Younger Pan. Panegyricus Ep. Epistulae Plut. Plutarch Vit. Vitae parallelae Aem. Paulus Aemilius Alc. Alcibiades Alex. Alexander Cim. Cimon Cleom. Cleomenes Comp. Alc. Cor. Comparatio Alcibiadis et Marcii Coriolani

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Abbreviations Comp. Lyc. Num. Cor. Crass. Fab. Lyc. Lys. Num. Per. Phil. Sert. Sol. Ti. Gracch. Mor. Amat. An recte dictum

403

Comparatio Lycurgi et Numae Marcius Coriolanus Crassus Fabius Maximus Lycurgus Lysander Numa Pericles Philopoemen Sertorius Solon Tiberius Gracchus Moralia Amatorius (Dialogue on Love) An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum (Is the Saying “Live in Obscurity” Right?) Apophth. lac. Apophthegmata Laconica (Sayings of Spartans) Apophth. Rom. Apophthegmata Romana (Sayings of Romans) Conj. praec. Conjugalia praecepta (Advice to Bride and Groom) [Cons. ap.] Consolatio ad Apollonium (Consolation to Apollonius) Cons. ux. Consolatio ad uxorem (Consolation to his Wife) Cupid. divit. De cupiditate divitiarum (On Love of Wealth) De frat. amor. De fraterno amore (On Brotherly Love) De garr. De garrulitate (On Talkativeness) De recta De recta ratione audiendi (On Hearing) De tranq. De tranquilitate animi (On the Tranquility of the Mind) Def. or. De defectu oraculorum (The Obsolescence of Oracles) [Lib. ed.] De liberis educandis (On the Education of Children) Mulier. virt. Mulierum virtutes (Virtues of Women) Non posse Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum (That Epicurus actually Makes a Pleasan Life Impossible) Praecepta Praecepta gerendae reipublicae (Precepts of Statecraft) Reg. et Imp. Apophth. Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata (Sayings of Kings and Commanders) Sept. sap. conv. Septem sapientium convivium (Dinner of the Seven Wise Men) Quint. Quintilian Inst. Institutio oratoria Sall. Sallust Cat. Bellum Catilinae (War with Catiline) Sen. Seneca (the Younger) Ben. De beneficiis (On Benefits) Clem. De clementia (On Mercy) Dial. Dialogi (Dialogues) Ep. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales Helv. De consolatione ad Helviam (Consolation to Helvia) Marc. De consolatione ad Marciam (Consolation to Marcia) Tranq. De tranquillitate animi (Tranquility of Mind) Vit. beat. De vita beata (On the Happy Life) Sen. (E) Seneca the Elder Contr. Controversiae (Controversies) Soph. Sophocles Aj. Ajax Ant. Antigone

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

404 El. Trach. Sor. Gyn. Stat. Silv. Stob. Ecl. Flor. Str. Geogr. Suet. Aug. Calig. Dom. Gram. Nero Vesp. Tac. Dial. Agr. Ann. Hist. Tat. Ad graec. Tert. Cor. Val. Thdt. 1 Tim Thuc. Ulp. Val. Max. Xen. Ages. An. Ap. Ath. pol. Cyr. Hell. Lac. Mem. Oec. Symp.

Abbreviations Electra Trachiniae Soranus Gynaeciorum (Gynecology) Statius Silvae Joannes Stobaeus Eclogae (Eclogues) Florilegium (Anthology) Strabo Geographica (Geography) Suetonius Divus Augustus Caligula Domitianus De grammaticis (On Grammarians) Nero Divus Vespasianus Tacitus Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue on orators) Agricola Annales (Annals) Historiae (Histories) Tatianus Oratio ad Graecos (Oration to the Greeks) Tertullianus De corona militis (On the Wreath of the Soldier) Adversus Valentinianos (Against the Valentinians) Theodoretus Cyrensis Interpretatio epistulae I ad Timotheum Thucydides, Histories Ulpian Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia Xenophon Agesilaus Anabasis Apologia Socratis (Apology of Socrates) Respublica Atheniensium (Constitution of the Athenians) Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus) Hellenica Respublica Lacedaemoniorum (The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians) Memorabilia (Remarkable Things) Oeconomicus (Economics) Symposium (Symposium)

Periodicals, Series, Reference Works AHR AJA AJPh ANRW BA

The American Historical Review American Journal of Archaeology The American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt The Biblical Archaeologist

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Abbreviations BBR BCH BDAG

BDB BDR Bibl CA CJ CPh CQ CR DNP HSCPh HThR HUT JAC JAAR JBL JECS JHS JR JRS JSJ JSNT LSJ MG MM New Docs NovT NTS RAC RhMus SaSc SVF TAPA ThDNT ThWNT TRE VigChr VT WUNT ZAC ZNW ZPE

405

Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago, 32000 (earlier Engl. edition by F.W. Danker, W. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich). Francis Brown, Driver S.R., Briggs C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Oxford, 1996. Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen, 1984. Biblica Classical Antiquity Classical Journal Classical Philology The Classical Quarterly The Classical Review Der neue Pauly Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum The Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical LIterature Journal of Early Christian Studies The Journal of Hellenic Studies The Journal of Religion The Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford, 1996. W.F. Moulton, A.S. Geden, I. H.Marshall, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, Edinburgh, 62002. J.H. Moulton, G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, London, 1957. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Sacra Scripta H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1903–. Transactions of the American Philological Association Georg Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964–1976. Georg Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart, 1933–1979. Gerhard Müller et al. (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin, 1976–2004. Vigiliae Christianae Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

406

Abbreviations

Epigraphic and Papyrological Corpora BGU IV Martin David, Berichtigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus Ägypten IV, Leiden, 1964. CCCA Maarten J. Vermaseren, Corpus cultus Cybelae Attidisque I. Asia Minor, Leiden, 1987. CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1825–1877. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1862–. CIL I2 Theodor Mommsen, Wilhelm Henzen, Christian Huelsen, Ernst Lommatzsch, Hermann Dessau, Attilio Degrassi, Johann Krummrey (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I2. Inscriptiones Latinae antiquissimae ad C. Caesaris mortem pars I–II, Berlin, 1893–1986. CIL VI Wilhelm Henzen, Gian Battista De Rossi, Eugen Bormann, Christian Huelsen, Martin Bang (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI, pars I–VIII, Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae, Berlin, 1876–2000. CIL VIII Gustav Wilmanns, Theodor Mommsen (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VIII. Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, Berlin, 1881, repr. 1960. CIL IX Theodor Mommsen (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum X. Inscriptiones Calabriae, Apuliae, Samnii, Sabinorum, Piceni Latinae, Berlin, 1883, repr. 1963. CIL X Theodor Mommsen (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum X. Inscriptiones Bruttiorum, Lucaniae, Campaniae, Siciliae, Sardiniae Latinae, Berlin, 1883, repr. 1963. CIL XIV Hermann Dessau (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XIV. Inscriptiones Latii veteris Latinae, Berlin, 1887, repr. 1968. EG IV Margherita Guarducci, Epigraphia greca IV, Rome, 1978. FD III.4 Gaston Colin, Robert Flacelière, André Plassart, Jean Pouilloux (eds.), Fouilles de Delphes III. Épigraphie. Fasc. 4, Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et la région nord du sanctuaire I–IV, Paris, 1930–1976. FdXanth VII André Balland, Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon. «Fouilles de Xanthos» VII, Paris, 1981. IKyme Helmut Engelmann, Die Inschriften von Kyme (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien), Bonn, 51976. IPerge Sencer ùahin, Die Inschriften von Perge, 2 vols. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54 and 61), Bonn, 1999, 2004. IAph2007 Joyce Reynolds, Charlotte Roueché, Gabriel Bodard (eds.), Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007), http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007. IDelos Félix Durrbach, Pierre Roussel, André Plassart et al. (eds.), Inscriptions de Délos I–VII, Paris, 1926–1972. IEph Helmut Engelmann, Dieter Knibbe, Reinhold Merkelbach (eds.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos III–IV (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 13 and 14), Bonn, 1980. IG Inscriptiones graecae IG II2 Johannes Kirchner (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd ed., Parts I–III, Berlin 1913–1940. IG IV Max Fraenkel (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae IV. Inscriptiones graecae Aeginae, Pityonesi, Cecryphaliae, Argolidis, “Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Peloponnesi et insularum vicinarum” 1, Berlin, 1902. IG V/1 Walter Kolbe (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae V/1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae, Berlin, 1913. IG V/2 Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae V/2. Inscriptiones Arcadiae, Berlin, 1913. IG IX/1 Wilhelm Dittenberger (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae IX,1. Inscriptiones Phocidis, Locridis, Aetoliae, Acarnaniae, insularum maris Ionii, Berlin, 1897. IG IX/12 Günther Klaffenbach (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae IX/1, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1932–1968. IG IX/2 Otto Kern (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae IX/2. Inscriptiones Thessaliae, Berlin, 1908. IG X/2.1 Charles Edson (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae X. Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Pars II, fasc. 1: Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae, Berlin, 1972.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Abbreviations

407

IG X/2.2 Fanula Papazoglu, Milena Milin, Marijana Ricl, with Klaus Hallof (eds.), Inscriptiones Graecae X. Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Pars II, fasc. 2: Inscriptiones Macedoniae septentrionalis. Sectio prima: Inscriptiones Lyncestidis, Heracleae, Pelagoniae, Derriopi, Lychnidi, Berlin, 1999. IG XI/4 Pierre Roussel (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XI. Inscriptiones Deli, fasc. 4, Berlin, 1914. IG XII/1 Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, fasc. 1. Inscriptiones Rhodi, Chalces, Carpathi cum Saro, Casi, Berlin, 1895. IG XII/3 Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, fasc. 3. Inscriptiones Symes, Teutlussae, Teli, Nisyri, Astypalaeae, Anaphes, Therae et Therasiae, Pholegandri, Meli, Cimoli, Berlin, 1898. With Inscriptiones Graecae XII,3 Supplementum, Berlin, 1904. IG XII/5 Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII/5. Inscriptiones Cycladum, 2 vols., Berlin, 1903, 1909. IG XII/6 Klaus Hallof, Angelus P. Matthaiou (eds.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII/6, 2 vols. Inscriptiones Chii et Sami cum Corassiis Icariaque, Berlin, 2000, 2004. IG XII/7 Jules Delamarre (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII/7. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum, Berlin, 1908. IG XII/8 Carl Friedrich (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XII,8. Inscriptiones insularum maris Thracici, Berlin, 1909. IG XIV Georg Kaibel (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus, Berlin, 1890. IGBulg Georgi Mihailov (ed.), Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae, 5 vols., Sofia, 1958– 1970, 1997. IGLAM Philippe Le Bas, William H. Waddington (eds.), Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Asie Mineur, 2 vols., Hildesheim, 1972. IGRR René Cagnat, Jules François Toutain, Georges Lafaye (eds.), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, 4 vols., Paris, 1911–1927. ILAlg Stéphane Gsell, Hans-Georg Pflaum (eds.), Inscriptions Latines de l’Algérie, Paris, 1922, 1957, 2003. ILindos Christian Sørensen Blinkenberg, K.F. Kinch (eds.), Lindos. Fouilles et recherches, Berlin, 1902–1914. ILS Hermann Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols., Berlin, 1892–1916. IMagnMai Otto Kern (ed.), Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander, Berlin, 1900. ISM I Dionisie Pippidi (ed.), Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae I. Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia, Bucharest, 1983. IvP II Max Fränkel (ed.), Die Inschriften von Pergamon II. Altertümer von Pergamon 8,1–2. Berlin, 1895. IvPerge Reinhold Merkelbach, Sencer ùahin (eds.), “Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge”, Epigraphica Anatolica 11 (1988) 97–169. JÖAI Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien MAMA I William M. Calder (ed.), Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua I, Manchester, 1928. 1928– 1962, 1988, 1993. MAMA VI William H. Buckler, William M. Calder (eds.), Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VI, Monuments and Documents from Phrygia and Caria, Manchester, 1939. OGIS Wilhelm Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae I–II, Leipzig, 1903, 1905. PH The Packard Humanities Institute, Searchable Greek Inscriptions: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main. REG Revue des études grecques RIG Charles Michel (ed.), Recueil d’inscriptions grecques, Bruxelles, 1900. SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, vols. 1–11, ed. Jacob E. Hondius, Leiden, 1923– 1954; vols. 12–25, ed. Arthur G. Woodhead, Leiden, 1955–1971; vols. 26–41, eds. Henry W. Pleket,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

408

Abbreviations

Ronald S. Stroud, Amsterdam, 1979–1994; vols. 42–44, eds. H.W. Pleket, R.S. Stroud, Johan H.M. Strubbe, Amsterdam, 1995–1997; vols. 45–49, eds. H.W. Pleket, R.S. Stroud, Angelos Chaniotis, J.H.M. Strubbe, Amsterdam, 1998–2002; Vols. 50– , eds. A. Chaniotis, R.S. Stroud, J.H.M. Strubbe, Amsterdam, 2003–. SIG Wilhelm Dittenberger et al. (eds), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum III, Leipzig, 31920. TAM V,1 Peter Herrmann (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris V. Tituli Lydiae, linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti I, Vienna, 1981.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography Bible Editions Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, 5th rev. ed. Adrian Schenker, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. BibleWorks for Windows, Bushell, Michael S., Michael D. Tan, Glenn L. Weaver (eds.), CD-Rom, Version 7.0.012g, Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2006. Greek–English New Testament, ed. Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, Barbara and Kurt Aland et al., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 272005. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes ed. A. Rahlfs, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum I. Genesis, ed. John W. Wevers, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.

Concordances, Lexicons, Reference Works BAUER, Walter, Frederick W. DANKER, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 32000. BLASS, Friedrich, Albert DEBRUNNER, Friedrich REHKOPF, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. BROWN, Francis, S.R. DRIVER, Charles A. BRIGGS, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. CHANTRAINE, Pierre, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots I, Paris: Klincksieck, 1968. ELLIOTT, James K., The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Studies and Documents 36), Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1968. KITTEL, Georg, Gerhard FRIEDRICH, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979; Engl. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. LIDDELL, Henry G., Robert SCOTT, Henry S. JONES, with Roderick MCKENZIE (eds.), A Greek– English Lexicon (with a revised supplement), Oxford: Clarendon, 91996. MOULTON, James H., George MILLIGAN, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957. MOULTON, William F., Alfred S. GEDEN, I. Howard MARSHALL, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 62002.

Epigraphy, Documentary Sources, Ancient Texts BÖCKH, August (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum II, Berlin: Officina Academica, 1853. BÖCKH, August, Johannes FRANZ (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum III, Berlin: Officina Academica, 1853. DESSAU, Hermann, Inscriptiones latinae selectae I–II, Berlin: Weidmann, 1892, 1906. DITTENBERGER, Wilhelm (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae I–II, Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903, 1905. DITTENBERGER, Wilhelm, Hermann DIELS, Friderich HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN, Otto WEINREICH, Erich ZIEBARTH (eds.), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum III, Leipzig: Hirzel, 31920. ENGELMANN, Helmut, Dieter KNIBBE, Reinhold MERKELBACH, Die Inschriften von Ephesos III– IV (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 13 and 14), Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1980. GUARDUCCI, Margherita, Epigrafia greca IV. Epigrafi sacre pagane e cristiane, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1978. HUNT, Arthur S., Campbell C. EDGAR, Select Papyri in Five Volumes II. Non-literary Papyri: Public Documents, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1963.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

410

Bibliography

KLOPPENBORG, John S., Richard S. ASCOUGH, Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary I. Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (BZNW 181), Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. PLEKET, H[arry] W., Epigraphica II. Texts on the Social History of the Greek World (Textus minores 41), Leiden: Brill, 1969. REYNOLDS, Joyce, Charlotte ROUECHÉ, Gabriel BODARD, Inscriptions of Aphrodisias, 2007, online edition: http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007. SOKOLOWSKI, Franciszek, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, Paris: Boccard, 1955. VERMASEREN, Maarten J., Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque (CCCA) I. Asia Minor, Leiden: Brill, 1987. WISTRAND, Erik, The So-called Laudatio Turiae. Introduction, Translation, Text, Commentary (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 34), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1976. Electronic Archive of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (EAGLE), http://www.edr-edr.it/index_it.html. The Packard Humanities Institute, Searchable Greek Inscriptions, http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main. Papyri.info, http://papyri.info. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. A Digital Library of Greek Literature, Irvine, CA: University of California, http://www.tlg.uci.edu. DÜRING, Ingemar, Chion of Heraclea: A Novel in Letters, Göteborg: Wettergren & Kerber, 1951. GEORGE, Andrew R., The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts I, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. GUTHRIE, Kenneth S., David FIDELER, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy, Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987. HENSE, Otto, Curt WACHSMUTH (eds.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium III, Berlin: Weidmann, 1894. INWOOD, Brad, Lloyd P. GERSON, The Stoics Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2008. MALHERBE, Abraham J., Cynic Epistles. A Study Edition (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 12), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. MEINEKE, August (ed.), Florilegium I–IV, Leipzig: Teubner, 1855–1864. NAUCK, August (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantii Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta, Halle, 1848, repr. Hildesheim: Geog Olms, 1963. ROSENMEYER, Patricia A., Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation (Routledge Classical Translations), London, New York: Routledge, 2006. ROWLANDSON, Jane (ed.), Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt. A Sourcebook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. STÄDELE, Alfons (ed.), Die Briefe des Pythagoras und der Pythagoreer (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 115), Meisenheim an Glen: Anton Hain, 1980. STRECKER, Georg, Udo SCHNELLE, Gerard SEELIG (eds.), Neuer Wettstein, Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus II/1, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. THESLEFF, Holger (ed.), The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Acta Academiae Aboensis, ser. A, vo1. 30, nr. I.), ǖbo: ǖbo Akademi, 1965. VON ARNIM, Hans (ed.), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta III, Leipzig: Teubner, 1903, reprint 1968. WACHSMUTH, Curt (ed.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium I–II, ed., Berlin: Weidmann, 1884.

Apocrypha BARRIER, Jeremy W., The Acts of Paul and Thecla. A Critical Introduction and Commentary (WUNT 2.270), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. LEVISON, John R., Texts in Transition. The Greek Life of Adam and Eve (Early Judaism and Its Literature 16), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000. NICKELSBURG, George W.E., James C. VANDERKAM, 1 Enoch. A New Translation, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

411

TROMP, Johannes, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek. A Critical Edition (Pseudepigrapha veteris testamenti Graece 6), Leiden: Brill, 2005. VANDERKAM, James C., The Book of Jubilees. A Critical Text (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510, Scriptores Aethiopici 87), Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VOUAUX, Léon, Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres (Les Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament 2), Paris: Letouzey, 1913.

Early Christian Writings ***, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed. Franz Xaver VON FUNK, Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1905. Ambrosius, De paradiso (De paradiso, De Cain, De Noe, De Abraham, De Isaac, De bono mortis; ed. Carl SCHENKL [CSEL 32/1]), Prag, Wien, Leipzig: Tempsky, 1896, 263–336. Augustinus, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, ed. D. WEBER (CSEL 91), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998. Chrysostom, John, Homily 9 on 1 Timothy, Philip SCHAFF (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church vol. 13, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Grand Rapids, MI, 1843, repr. 1979, 435–437. Chrysostome, Jean, Lettres à Olympias, ed. Anne-Marie MALINGREY (SC 13b), Paris: Cerf, 1968. Chrysostomus, Joannes, In Epistulam I ad Timotheum. Hom. 8, 9, 11, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 62, Paris, 1862, 539–544, 544–548, 553–558. Eusebius, Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Philip SCHAFF (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 2nd series, vol. 1, New York: The Christian Literature Company, Oxford, London: Parker, 1890, repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980. Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 20, Paris: Garnier, 1857. Hippolytus, Philosophoumena [attributed to Origen], Origenes, Opera omnia, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 16.3, Paris, 1863. Origenes, Contra Celsum, Origenes, Opera omnia, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 11, Paris, 1857. Tertullianus, Apologeticum, ed. H. HOPPE (CSEL 69), Wien, Leipzig: Tempsky, 1939. Tertullian, Apology, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, vol. 3. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander ROBERTS, James DONALDSON, New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885, repr. 2007. Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas b. Pauli commentarii. The Latin version with the Greek Fragments, ed. Henry B. SWETE, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882. Theodoretus Cyrensis, Interpretatio epistolae I ad Timotheum, Opera omnia III, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 82, Paris, 1251–1272. Theophylactus, Expositio Epistolae primae ad Corinthios, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul MIGNE, vol. 124, Paris, 1879, 564–794.

Classical Authors A Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon (LCL 45, transl. S. Gaselee), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1947, repr. 1969. Aeschines (LCL 106, transl. Charles D. Adams), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1919, repr. 1988. Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens, Persians, Prometheus, Seven Against Thebes (LCL 145, transl. Herbert W. Smyth), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1926.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

412

Bibliography

Appian, Roman History IV: The Civil Wars (LCL 5, transl. Horace White), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913, repr. 1961. Aristides, Aelius, ex recensione Guillelmi Dindorfii, II, Leipzig: Weidmann, 1829. —, The Complete Works, vol. 1: Orations I–XVI, vol. 2: Orations XVII–LIII (transl. Charles A. Behr), Leiden: Brill, 1986, 1981. Apuleius, The Golden Ass / The Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius II (LCL 44, transl. W. Adlington, rev. S. Gaselee), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1924; new edition: Metamorphoses: Books VII–XI (transl. Arthur Hanson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Aristophanes I, The Acharnians, The Knights, The Clouds, The Wasps (LCL 78, transl. Benjamin B. Rogers), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1930; new edition: Acharnians, Knights (transl. Jeffrey Henderson), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. — III, The Lysistrata, The Thesmophoriazusae. The Ecclesiazusae. The Plutus (LCL 179, transl. Benjamin B. Rogers), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924, repr. 1963; new editions: Birds. Lysistrata. Women at the Thesmophoria, and Frogs. Assemblywomen. Wealth (LCL 179, 180, transl. Jeffrey Henderson), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000, 2002. Aristotle, Generation of Animals (LCL 366, transl. A.L. Peck), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. —, Metaphysics Books 10–14. Oeconomica. Magna Moralia (LCL 287, transl. Hugh Tredennick, G. Cyril Armstrong), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. —, Nicomachean Ethics (LCL 73, transl. H. Rackham), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. —, Politics (LCL 264, transl. H. Rackham), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932, repr. 1972. —, The Art of Rhetoric (LCL 193, transl. J. H. Freese), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926, repr. 1975. Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists I–II, VI (LCL 204, 208, 327, transl. Charles B. Gulick), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: William Heinemann, 1927, 1928, 1937 (repr. 1951); new edition: The Learned Banqueters VI: Books 12–13.594b (LCL 327, transl. S. Douglas Olson), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. C Cato and Varro, On Agriculture (LCL 283, transl. W.D. Hooper, H.B. Ash), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering (LCL 462, transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972, repr. 2002. —, Brutus, Orator (LCL 342, transl. G. L. Hendrickson, H. M. Hubbell), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. —, De finibus bonorum et malorum (LCL 40, transl. H. Rackham), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1931, new edition On ends, London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. —, De officiis (LCL 30, transl. Walter Miller), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Macmillan, 1913, repr. On duties, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. —, On duties (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, eds. Miriam Tamara Griffin, E. Margaret Atkins), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, repr. 2003. —, On the Commonwealth. On the Laws (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, transl. James E.G. Zetzel), Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. —, The Letters to his Friends III (LCL 230, transl. W. Glynn Williams), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929, repr. 1960; new edition transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

413

Columella, Lucius Iunius Moderatus, On Agriculture I, Books 1–4; On Agriculture III. Books 5– 12. On trees (LCL 361, 408, transl. Harisson B. Ash; E.S. Forster, Edward H. Heffner), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941, repr. 1960; 1968. D Demosthenes, Private Orations I–III (LCL, transl. A.T. Murray), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1936–1939. Dio Cassius, Roman History VI–VII. Books 51–55 and 56–60 (LCL 83, 175, transl. Earnest Cary), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917, 1924, repr. 1968. Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 31–36 (LCL 358, transl. J.W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crossby), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1940. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History vol. IV: Books IX–XII.40 (LCL 375, transl. Charles H. Oldfather), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1989. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers II. Books 6–10 (LCL 185, transl. R.D. Hicks), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925, repr. 1965. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, vol. V. Books 8–9.24 (LCL 372, transl. Earnest Carry), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1945, repr. 1962. E Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano digestae, ed. H. Schenkl, Leipzig: Teubner, 1916, repr. 1965. Epictetus, Moral Discourses, Enchiridion and Fragments, transl. Elizabeth Carter, London: Dent, New York: Dutton, 1910, repr. 1966. —, The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments II (LCL 218., transl. W.A. Oldfather), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1952. Epicuri Epistulae Tres et Ratae Sententiae e Laertio Diogene Servatae. Gnomologium Epicureum Vaticanum, ed. P. von der Mühll (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig: Teubner, 1922. Epicurus, Letters, Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings, transl. Russel M. Geer, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. Epiktet, Teles und Musonius. Wege zum Glück, auf dem Grundlage der Übertragung von W. Capelle neu überstzt, ed. Rainer Nickel, Zürich, München, 1987. Euripides, Bacchae. Iphigenia at Aulis. Rhesus (LCL 495, transl. David Kovacs), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. —, Children of Heracles. Hippolytus. Andromache. Hecuba (LCL 484, transl. David Kovacs), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. —, Fabulae II, ed. Gilbert Murray, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. —, Ion, Hippolytus, Medea, Alcestis (LCL 12, transl. Arthur S. Way), London: Heinemann, New York: MacMillan, 1912. —, Iphigeneia at Aulis, Rhesus, Hecuba, The Daughters of Troy, Helen (LCL, transl. Arthur S. Way), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam, 1930. —, Suppliant Women, Electra, Heracles (LCL 9, transl. David Kovacs), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. —, The Complete Greek Drama II. The Phoenissae, transl. E.P. Coleridge, New York: Random, 1938. —, Trojan Women. Iphigenia Among the Taurians. Ion (LCL 10, transl. David Kovacs), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. G Gellius, Aulus, Attic Nights II: Books 6–13 (LCL 200, transl. J. C. Rolfe), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. H Herodotus, Histories (Persian Wars) I–IV (LCL 117–120, transl. A. D. Godley), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920–1925, repr. 1938.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

414

Bibliography

Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Works and Days, transl. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. —, Theogony, ed. M. L. West, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. —, Theogony. Works and Days. Testimonia, transl. Glenn W. Most (LCL 57N), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts, ed. Ilaria Ramelli (SBL – Writings from the Greco-Roman World 28), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2009. Horace, The Odes and Epodes (LCL 33, transl. C.E. Bennett), 1927, repr. 1978. I Isaeus (LCL 202, transl. Edward S. Forster), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1962. Isocrates I (LCL 209, transl. George Norlin), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1928, repr. 1966. J Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I, III (LCL 242, 281, transl. H.St.J. Thackeray), London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926 (repr. 1961), 1934. —, The Jewish War Books I–III, III–IV (LCL 203, 487, transl. H.St.J. Thackeray), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927, 1928. —, The Life. Against Apion (LCL 186, transl. H.St.J. Thackeray), London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926, repr. 1961. Juvenal and Persius (LCL 91, transl. Susanna Morton Braund), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. L Livy, History of Rome, transl. B.O. Foster (vols. I–VI), Frank Gardner Moore (vol. VII–VIII), Evan T. Sage (vols. IX, XI), vol I: Books 1–2 (LCL 114), V: Books 21–22 (LCL 233), VI: Books 23–25 (LCL 355), VII: Books 26–27 (LCL 367), VIII: Books 28–30 (LCL 381), IX: Books 31–34 (LCL 295), XI: Books 38–39 (LCL 313), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1919 (repr. 2002), 1929, 1940 (repr. 1999), 1943, 1949, 1935 (repr. 1967), and 1936 (repr. 1983). Lucian II–V, transl. A.M. Harmon (LCL 54, 130, 162, 302), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1915 (repr. 1968), 1921 (repr. 1995) 1925 (repr. 1999), 1936 (repr. 2001). Lysias (LCL 244, transl. W.R.M. Lamb), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1930. M Martial, Epigrams II. Books 6–10 (LCL 95, transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1994. Menander I, Aspis. Georgos. Dis Exapaton. Dyskolos. Encheiridion. Epitrepontes (LCL 132, transl. W. G. Arnott) , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1979. —, The Dyskolos, transl. E.W. Handley, London: Methuen, 1965. Musonius Rufus “The Roman Socrates” (Yale Classical Studies 10, transl. Cora E. Lutz), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Musonius Rufus, Entretiens et fragments. Introduction, traduction et commentaire (Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie. Kleine Reihe 5), transl. Amand JAGU, Hildesheim, New York: Olms, 1979. O Onasander, Strathgiko,j (Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander, LCL 156, transl. William A. Oldfather) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1962.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

415

Ovid, Tristitia. Ex Ponto (LCL 151, transl. Arthur Leslie Wheeler), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1939. P Petronius, Satyricon. Seneca, Apocolocyntosis (LCL 15, transl. Michael Heseltine, W.H..D Rouse), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961. Philo I. On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 (LCL 226, transl. F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. — II. On the Cherubim. The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain. The Worse Attacks the Better. On the Posterity and Exile of Cain. On the Giants (LCL 227, transl. F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. — VI, On Abraham. On Joseph. On Moses (LCL 289, transl. F.H. Colson), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1935, repr. 1966. — IX. Every Good Man is Free. On the Contemplative Life. On the Eternity of the World. Against Flaccus. Apology for the Jews. On Providence (LCL 363, transl. F. H. Colson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. — Supp. I. Questions and Answers on Genesis (LCL 380, transl. Ralph Marcus), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Philon d’Alexandrie, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim (SC 34A, transl. Ch. Mercier), Paris: Cerf, 1979. Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana I: Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Books 1–4 (LCL 16, transl. Christopher P. Jones), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Plato I, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (LCL 36, transl. H. North Fowler), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914, repr. 2005. — III, Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias (LCL 166, transl. W.R.M. Lamb), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. — IV, Laches Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus (LCL 165, transl. W.R.M. Lamb), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1924 (repr. 1952). — V–VI, Republic. Books 1–5, 6–10 (LCL 237, 276, transl. Paul Shorey), London: Heinemann, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930, 1935. — VIII, Charmides. Alcibiades. Hipparchus. The Lovers. Theages. Minos. Epinomis (LCL 201, transl. W.R.M. Lamb), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam, 1927. — IX, Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles (LCL 234, transl. R.G. Bury), London: Heinemann, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929. — X–XI, Laws, Books 1–6 and 7–12 (LCL 187, 192, transl. R.G. Bury), London: Heinemann, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926. —, Republic, vol. 1. Books 1–5; vol. 2. Books 6–10 (LCL 237, 276, transl. Paul Shorey), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930 (repr. 1937); 1935 (1942). Pliny, Letters II. Books 8–10. Panegyricus (LCL 59, transl. Betty Radice), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. —, Lives I. Theseus and Romulus. Lycurgus and Numa. Solon and Publicola (LCL 46, transl. B. Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914 (repr. 1982). —, Lives II. Themistocles and Camillus. Aristides and Cato Major. Cimon and Lucullus (LCL 47, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, 1914 (repr. 1968). —, Lives III. Pericles and Fabius Maximus, Nicias and Crassus (LCL 65, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam, 1915 (repr. 1932). —, Lives IV: Alcibiades and Coriolanus. Lysander and Sulla (LCL 80, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. —, Lives V. Agesilaus and Pompey. Pelopidas and Marcellus (LCL 87, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

416

Bibliography

—, Lives VI. Dion and Brutus. Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus (LCL 98, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. —, Lives IX. Demetrius and Antony, Pyrrhus and Caius Marius (LCL 101, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920 (repr. 1959). —, Lives X. Agis and Cleomenes, Tiberius, and Caius Gracchus, Philopoemen and Flamininus (LCL 102, transl. Bernadotte Perrin), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921, repr. 1959. —, Moralia I. The Education of Children. How the Young Man Should Study Poetry. On Listening to Lectures. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue (LCL 197, transl. F. C. Babbitt), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. —, Moralia II. How to Profit by One’s Enemies. On Having Many Friends. Chance. Virtue and Vice. Letter of Condolence to Apollonius. Advice About Keeping Well. Advice to Bride and Groom. The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men. Superstition (LCL 222, transl. Frank C. Babbitt), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. —, Moralia III. Sayings of Kings and Commanders. Sayings of Romans. Sayings of Spartans. The Ancient Customs of the Spartans. Sayings of Spartan Women. Bravery of Women (LCL 245, transl. Frank C. Babbitt), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931, repr. 1968. —, Moralia VII. On Love of Wealth. On Compliancy. On Envy and Hate. On Praising Oneself Inoffensively. On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance. On Fate. On the Sign of Socrates. On Exile. Consolation to His Wife (LCL 405, transl. Phillip H. De Lacy, Benedict Einarson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. —, Moralia IX. Table-Talk, Books 7–9. Dialogue on Love (LCL 425, transl. W. C. Helmbold), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. —, Moralia X. Love Stories. That a Philosopher Ought to Converse Especially With Men in Power. To an Uneducated Ruler. Whether an Old Man Should Engage in Public Affairs. Precepts of Statecraft. On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy. That We Ought Not to Borrow. Lives of the Ten Orators. Summary of a Comparison Between Aristophanes and Menander (LCL 321, transl. Harold N. Fowler) London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936. —, Moralia XIV. That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible. Reply to Colotes in Defence of the Other Philosophers. Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept? On Music (LCL 428, transl. Benedict Einarson, Phillip H. De Lacy), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Polybius, Histories II, transl. Evelyn S. Shuckburg, London New York: MacMillan, 1889. —, The Histories I–VI (LCL 128, 137, 138, 159, 160, 161, transl. W.R. Paton), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1922–1927. Q Quintilian, Institutio oratoria. Book 1–3 (LCL 124, transl. H.E. Butles), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933 (repr. 1996). S Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Epistles 1–3 (LCL 75–77, transl. Richard M. Gummere), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979, 1970, 1971. —, Moral Essays II. De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam (LCL 254, transl. John W. Basore), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932, repr. 2001. —, Moral Essays III. De beneficiis (LCL 310, transl. John W. Basore), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935 (repr. 1964).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

417

Sophocles, Antigone, The Women of Trachis, Philoctetes, Oedipus at Colonus (LCL 21, transl. Hugh Lloyd-Jones), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. —, Ajax, transl. R. C. Trevelyan, William-Alan Landes, Studio City, CA: Players Press, 1998. —, Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus (LCL 20, transl. Hugh Lloyd-Jones), 1992, repr. 2001. Soranus, Gynecology, ed. Owsei Temkin, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1956, repr. 1991. Statius I, Silvae, Thebaid I–IV (LCL, transl. J.H. Mozley), London: Heinemann, New York: Putnam, 1928. Strabo, Geography I–VIII (LCL 49, 50, 182, 196, 211, 223, 241, 267, transl. Horace L. Jones), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924–1932. Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars I: Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula, II: Claudius. Nero. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian. Titus, Domitian. Lives of Illustrious Men: Grammarians and Rhetoricians. Poets. Lives of Pliny the Elder and Passienus Crispus (LCL 31, 38, transl. J.C. Rolfe), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928 (repr. 1998), 1935. Synesius, Epistulae, in R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci, Paris: Didot, 1873, repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965, 638–739 (ThLG search 2011.02.25). —, The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene, transl. Augustine Fitzgerald, Oxford: Oxford University Press, London: Humphrey Milford, 1926 (online: http://www.livius.org/susz/synesius/synesius_letters.html; search 2011.02.25). T Tacitus I, Agricola. Germania. Dialogus (LCL 35, transl. M. Hutton, W. Peterson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914, repr. 1970. Tacitus III, Histories Boks IV–V, Annals Books I–III (LCL 249, transl. Clifford H. Moore, John Jackson), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1931, repr. 1969. Tacitus IV, The Annals, Books IV–VI, XI–XII (LCL 312, transl. John Jackson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937, repr. 1970. Terence, The Woman of Andros. The Self-Tormentor. The Eunuch (LCL 22, transl. John Barsby), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Terentius, Publius Afer, Comoediae VI, transl. Edward St. John Parry, London: Whitaker, George Bell, 1857. Thucydides, History of the Peloponessian War I–IV (LCL 108, 109, 110, 169, transl. Charles F. Smith), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919 (repr. 1969), 1920 (repr. 1975), 1921 (repr. 1977), 1923 (repr. 1976). V Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings I–II, Books 1–5 and 6–9 (LCL 492, 493, transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey), Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press, 2000. X Xenophon, Hellenica I–II (LCL 88, 89, transl. Carleton L. Brownson), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918, 1921. —, Anabasis 1–3 (LCL 90, transl. Carleton L. Brownson, revised by John Dillery) London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvad University Press, 1998. —, Scripta Minora. Hiero. Agesilaus. Constitution of the Lacedaemonians. Ways and Means. Cavalry Commander. Art of Horsemanship. On Hunting. Constitution of the Athenians (LCL 183, transl. E. C. Marchant, G.W. Bowersock), London: Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvad University Press, 1925. —, Memorabilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apologia (LCL 168, transl. E.C. Marchant, O.J. Todd), Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press, 1923, repr. 1997. —, Oeconomicus. A Social and Historical Commentary, transl. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

418

Bibliography

Secondary literature A ADKINS, Arthur H.W., “Values, Goals, and Emotions in the Iliad”, CPh 77.4 (1982) 292–326. AGUSTA-BOULAROT, Sandrine, “Autour d’une grammatica. La question des femmes et de l’éducation dans le monde Romain depuis le livre de H.-I. Marrou”, Jean-Marie PAILLER, Pascal PAYEN (eds.), Que reste-t-il de l’éducation classique? Relire « le Marrou ». Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité, Toulouse: Presses Universitaires de Mirail, 2004, 319–330. ALAND, Barbara, Was ist Gnosis?: Studien zum frühen Christentum, zu Marcion und zur kaiserzeitlichen Philosophie (WUNT 1.239), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ALETTI, Jean-Noël, “La soumission des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1–7. Validité des arguments pauliniens?”, Bib 89 (2008) 457–476. ALEXANDER, Christine, “A Bacchic Inscription of the Second Century A. D.”, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 27.11 (1932) 240–242. ALFÖLDY Géza, Römische Sozialgeschichte, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 31984; Engl. The Social History of Rome (transl. David Braund, Frank Pollock), London: Routledge, 1988. AMUNDSEN, Darrel W., Carol Jean DIERS, “The Age of Menopause in Classical Greece and Rome”, Human Biology 42.1 (1970) 79–86. ARNAOUTOGLU, Ilias N., “Roman Law and Collegia in Asia Minor”, Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité 49 (2002) 27–44. ASCOUGH, Richard S., Paul’s Macedonian Associations (WUNT 2.196), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ASMIS, Elizabeth, “The Stoics on Women”, in Julie K. WARD (ed.), Feminism and Ancient Philosophy, New York, London: Routledge, 1996, 68–92. ATHANASSIADI, Polymnia, Michael FREDE, Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. AUNE, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. —, “Septem sapientium convivium (Moralia 146B–164D)”, in Hans Dieter BETZ (ed.), Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 4), Leiden: Brill, 1978, 51–105. B BAGNALL, Roger S., Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. BALCH, David, “1 Cor 7:32–35 and Stoic Debates About Marriage, Anxiety, and Distraction”, JBL 102.3 (1983) 429–439. —, “Neopythagorean Moralist and the New Testament Household Codes”, in Wolfgang HAASE (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament), Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992, 380–411. —, Let Wives Be Submissive. The Domestic Code in I Peter (SBLMS 26), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. BALDWIN, H. Scott, “A difficult word: auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:12”, in Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, Thomas R. SCHREINER, H. Scott BALDWIN (eds.), Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995, 65–80. BARCLAY, John M.G., “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen”, JSNT 26.3 (2004) 363–366. —, “Deviance and Apostasy. Some Applications of Deviance Theory to First-century Judaism and Christianity”, in Philip F. ESLER (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity. Social-scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context, London, New York: Routledge, 1995, 114–127. —, “There is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age”, NTS 53 (2007) 225–241.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

419

—, “Money and Meetings: Group Formation among Diaspora Jews and Early Christians”, in Andreas GUTSFELD, Dietrich-Alex KOCH (eds.), Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (STAC 25), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 113–127. BARNES, Jonathan, “Ancient Philosophers”, in Gillian CLARK, Tessa RAJAK (eds.), Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World. Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 293–306. BARR, James, “One Man, or All Humanity?”, in Athalya BRENNER, Jan Willem VAN HENTEN (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures. Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12– 13 May 1997 (Studies in Theology and Religion 1), Leiden: Deo, 1999, 3í21. BARRESI, Paolo, Province dell’Asia Minore: costo dei marmi, architettura pubblica e committenza (Studia Archaeologica 125), Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2003. BARRETT, Anthony A., “Tacitus, Livia and the Evil Stepmother”, RhMus 144.2 (2001) 171–175. BARRETT, Charles K., The Acts of the Apostles II (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. BARTMAN, Elizabeth, “Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment”, AJA 105.1 (2001) 1–25. BARTON, Stephen C., Gregory H.R. HORSLEY, “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches”, JAC 24 (1981) 7–41. BARTSCH, Hans-Werner, Die Anfänge urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den Pastoralbriefen (Theologische Forschung 34), Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1965. BASSLER, Jouette M., “The Widows’ Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3–16”, JBL 103.1 (1984) 23–41. —, 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. BAUDY, Dorothea, “Prohibitions of Religion in Antiquity: Setting the Course of Europe’s Religious History”, in Clifford ANDO, Jörg RÜPKE (eds.), Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 15), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006, 100–114. BAUER, Walter, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, ed. Georg STRECKER (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Engl. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979. BAUM, Armin Daniel, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum (WUNT 2.138), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. BAUMAN, Richard A., “The Suppression of the Bacchanals: Five Questions”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 39.3 (1990) 334–348. BECK, Roger, “On Becoming a Mithraist”, in Leif E. VAAGE (ed.), Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 18), Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, 175–194. —, “The Mysteries of Mithras”, in John S. KLOPPENBORG, Stephen G. WILSON (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996, 178–180. BENDLIN, Andreas, “Associations, Funerals, Sociality, and Roman Law: The Collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) Reconsidered”, in Markus ÖHLER, Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen. Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung (WUNT I 280), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 207–295. —, “Gemeinschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Identität: Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom”, in Ulrike EGELHAAF-GAISER, Alfred SCHÄFER (eds.), Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (STAC 13), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 9–40. BERG, Ria, “Wearing Wealth. Mundus Muliebris and Ornatus as Status Markers for Women in Imperial Rome”, in Päivi SETÄLÄ, Ria BERG, Riikka HÄLIKKÄ, Minerva KELTANEN, Janne PÖLÖNEN, Ville VUOLANTO (eds.), Women Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 25), Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002, 15–73. BERGER, Klaus, “Volksversammlung und Gemeinde Gottes. Zu den Anfangen der christlichen Verwendung von «ekklesia»”, in ID., Tradition und Offenbarung. Studien zum frühen Christentum, eds. Matthias KLINGHARDT, Günter RÖHSER, Tübingen: Francke, 2006, 173–206 (orig. ZThK 73 [1976] 167–207).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

420

Bibliography

BERGER, Peter L., Thomas LUCKMANN, The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Allen Lane, 1967 (repr. 1971). BERNHARDT, Rainer, Luxuskritik und Aufwandsbeschränkungen in der griechischen Welt (Historia – Einzelschriften 168), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004. BERTHOLET, Florence, Egypte – Grèce – Rome: les différents visages des femmes antiques. Travaux et colloques du Séminaire d'Épigraphie Grecque et Latine de l’IASA 2002–2006 (ECHO 7), Frankfurt, New York: Peter Lang, 2008. BETZ, Hans Dieter, “Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Romans 6”, in Troels ENGBERG-PEDERSEN (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context, London: T&T Clark, 22004, 84–118. BEYER, Hermann Wolfgang, evpi,skopoj, ThWNT 2 (1935) 604–617. BIERINGER, Reimund, “Women and Leadership in Romans 16. The Leading Roles of Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia in Early Christianity”, I–II, East Asian Pastoral Review 44.3 (2007) 221–237; 44.4 (2007) 316–336. BJELLAND KARTZOW, Marianne, Gossip and Gender. Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles (BZNW 164), Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. BLOK, Josine H., “Virtual Voices. Toward a Choreography of Women’s Speech in Classical Athens”, in André LARDINOIS, Laura MCCLURE (eds.), Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, 95–116. BOLFĂ-OTIC, Victoria, “Diaconesele în epistolele pauline”, Studia Universitatis Babeú-Bolyai. Theologia Catholica 2 (2008) 23–40. BONHÖFFER, Adolph Friedrich, The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus (transl. William O. Stephens) (Revisioning Philosophy 2), New York, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996. BORGEN, Peder, “‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults”, in Troels ENGBERG-PEDERSEN (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context, London: T&T Clark, 22004, 30–59. BOSWORTH, Albert B., “The Historical Context of Thucydides’ Funeral Oration”, JHS 120 (2000) 1–16. BOUDREAU FLORY, Marleen, “Where Women Precede Men: Factors Influencing the Order of Names in Roman Epitaphs”, CJ 79.3 (1984) 216–224. BOUGHTON, Lynne C., “From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinguishing Hagiographical License form Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul / Acts of Thecla”, JR 71.3 (1991) 362í383. BOULET, Bernard, “Is Numa the Genuine Philosopher King?”, in Lukas DE BLOIS, Jeroen BONS, Ton KESSELS, Dirk M. SCHENKEVELD, with Jan Maarten BREMER, Carolyn DOYLE, Edwin VAN MEERKERK, Aurelio PÉREZ JIMÉNEZ, Luc VAN DER STOCKT, Frances TITCHENER (eds.), The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, vol. 2: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, 245–256. BOURDIEU, Pierre, “Structures, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic Power”, in Nicholas B. DIRKS, Geoff ELEY, Sherry ORTNER (eds.), Culture/Power/History. A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, 155–199. BOUTENEFF, Peter, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008. BOWIE, Ewen, “The Ups and Downs of Aristophanic Travel”, in Edith HALL, Amanda WRIGLEY (eds.), Aristophanes in Performance, 421 BC – AD 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs, London: Legenda. Modern Humanities Research Association, 2007, 32–50. BRADLEY, Keith, “Images of Childhood. The Evidence of Plutarch”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 183–196. BRADSHAW, Leah, “Political Rule, Prudence and the ‘Woman Question’ in Aristotle”, Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 24.3 (1991) 557–573. BREMMER, Jan N., “Pandora or the Creation of a Greek Eve”, in Gerard P. LUTTIKHUIZEN (ed.), The Creation of Man and Woman. Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 18–33.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

421

—, “Priestly Personnel of the Ephesian Artemision: Anatolian, Persian, Greek and Roman Aspects”, 1–21, http://theol.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2008/Priestly/Bremmer-Priests.pdf. —, “Plutarch and the Naming of Greek Women”, AJPh 102.4 (1981) 425–426. —, “Rationalization and Disenchantment in Ancient Greece: Max Weber among the Pythagoreans and Orphics?”, in Richard G.A. BUXTON (ed.), From Myth To Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 71–83. BRENK, Frederick E., “Old Wineskins Recycled: Autarkeia in I Timothy 6.5–10”, Filología Neotestamentaria 3 (1990) 39–52. BRIGGS KITTREDGE, Cynthia, “Reconstructing «Resistance» or Reading to Resist: James C. Scott and the Politics of Interpretation”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 145–155. BRIGGS, Sheila, “Paul on Bondage and Freedom in Imperial Roman Society”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Politics: EkklƝsia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000, 110–123. BROCK, Roger, “The Labour of Women in Classical Athens”, CQ 44.2 (1994) 336–346. BROOTEN, Bernadette, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Brown Judaic Studies 36), Atlanta, GA: Scholar Press, 1982. BROWN A.S., “Aphrodite and the Pandora Complex”, CQ 47.1 (1997) 26–47. BROWN, Eric, “Hellenistic Cosmopolitanism”, in Mary Louise GILL, Pierre PELLEGRIN (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, 549–558. BROWN, Lucinda A., “Asceticism and Ideology: The Language of Power in the Pastoral Epistles”, Semeia 57 (1992) 77–94. BROWN, Peter, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. BROWN, Raymond E., Carolyn OSIEK, Pheme PERKINS “Early Church,” in Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, 1338–1353. BROX, Norbert, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT), Regensburg: Pustet, 1969. —, Falsche Verfasserangaben. Zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 79), Stuttgart: KBW, 1975. —, “Zu den persönlichen Notizen der Pastoralbriefen”, in ID., Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike (Wege der Forschung 484), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977, 272–294. BRUCE, Frederick F., 1 and 2 Corinthians (New Century Bible), London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971. BRYANT, Joseph M., Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics (SUNY Series in the Sociology of Culture), Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. BUCKLER, W[illiam] H., “A Charitable Foundation of A. D. 237”, JHS 57.1 (1937) 1–10. BURKERT, Walter, “The Logic of Cosmogony”, in Richard G.A. BUXTON (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 87–106. BURRELL, Barbara, Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Cincinnati Classical Studies, NS 9), Leiden: Brill, 2004. BURRUS, Virginia, “The Heretical Woman as Symbol in Alexander, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome”, HThR 84.3 (1991) 229–248. —, Review of Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. The Power of the Hysterical Woman, JBL 118.1 (1999) 166–167. BURTON, Diana, “Public Memorials, Private Virtues: Women on Classical Athenian Monuments”, Mortality 8.1 (2003) 20–35. BURTON, Joan, “Women’s Commensality in the Ancient Greek World”, Greece & Rome 45.2 (1998) 143–165.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

422

Bibliography

BUTLER, George R, “Tertullian’s Pandora and John Milton’s The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce”, Christianity and Literature 52.3 (2003) 325–342. BÜYÜKKOLANCI, Mustafa, Helmut ENGELMANN, “Inschriften aus Ephesos”, ZPE 120 (1998) 65–82. BYRNE, Shannon N., “Martial’s Fiction: Domitius Marsus and Maecenas”, CQ 54.1 (2004) 255–265. C CAIRNS, Douglas L., Aidǀs. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. CAMPANILE, M. Domitilla, “I sommi sacerdoti del koinón d’Asia: Numero, rango e criteri di elezione”, ZPE 100 (1994) 422–426. CANCIK, Hubert, “Haus, Schule, Gemeinde: Zur Organisation von in Rom (1.–3. Jh. n. Chr.)”, in Jörg RÜPKE (ed.), Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich. Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 31–48. CANCIK-LINDEMAIER, Hildegard, “Die vestalischen Jungfrauen”, in Thomas SPÄTH, Beate WAGNER-HASEL (eds.), Frauenwelten in der Antike, Geschlechtsordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, Stuttgart, Weinmar: Metzler, 2000, 111–123. CAREY, Chris, “Aristophanes Lysistrate 637”, JHS 113 (1993) 148–149. CARTER, Warren, “James C. Scott and New Testament Studies: A Response to Allen Callahan, William Herzog, and Richard Horsley”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 81–94. CARVALHO, Corrine L., Encountering Ancient Voices: A Guide to Reading the Old Testament, Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press, 2006. CASTELLI, Elizabeth A., “Gender, Theory, and The Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark”, JECS 6.2 (1998) 227–257. CHAMOUX, François, Hellenistic Civilization (La civilisation héllénistique, Paris: Athaud, 1981, Engl. transl. Michel Roussel), Malden, MA, Oxford, Berlin: Blackwell, 2003. CHISHOLM, Robert B., rf'B', in William A. VANGEMEREN (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997, 777–779. CLAASSEN, Jo-Marie, “Documents of a Crumbling Marriage: The Case of Cicero and Terentia”, Phoenix 50.3/4 (1996) 208–232 CLARK KROEGER, Richard, Catherine CLARK KROEGER, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. CLARK, Gillian, “Roman Women”, Greece & Rome 28.2 (1981) 193–212. CLIFFORD Richard J., “Genesis (1,1í25,18)”, in Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, 8í43. CLINE, David J.A., “~da, the Hebrew for «Human, Humanity». A Response to James Barr”, VT 53.3 (2003) 297í310. CLINTON, Kevin, “The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64.3 (1974) 1–143. COHEN, David, “Women in Public: Gender, Citinzenship, and Social Status in Classical Athens”, in Robert W. WALLACE, Michael GAGARIN (eds.), Symposion 2001. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte. Papers on Greek and Hellenistic Legal History (Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 14), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005, 33–45. COHN, Dorrit, “Does Socrates Speak for Plato? Reflections on an Open Question”, New Literary History 32.3 (2001) 485–500. COLEMAN, James S., Foundations of Social Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. COLLINS, John J., “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve”, in Hindy NAJMAN, Judith H. NEWMAN (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup 83), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 294–308.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

423

—, “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach”, in J. BARTON, J. MUDDIMAN (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, 667–698. —, “Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism”, in Leo G. PERDUE, Joseph BLENKINSOPP, John COLLINS, Carol MEYERS (eds.), Families in Ancient Israel, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997, 104–162. —, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Old Testament Library), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. COLLINS, Raymond F., 1&2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. —, First Corinthians (SP 7), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. COLLINS, Susan D., Devin STAUFFER “The Challenge of Plato’s «Menexenus»”, The Review of Politics 61.1 (1999) 85–115. CONNELLY, Joan B., Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. CONNOLLY, A.L., “Standing on Sacred Ground”, New Docs 4 (1987) 105–112. CONZELMANN, Hans, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21981. COOK, J.M., D.J. BLACKMAN, “Archaeology in Western Asia Minor 1965–70”, Archaeological Reports 17 (1970–1971) 33–62. COOK, John Granger, “1 Cor 9,5: The Women of the Apostles”, Bib 89 (2008) 352–368. COOLEY, Melvin G.L., Alison E. COOLEY, Pompeii. A Sourcebook (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World), London: Routledge, 2004, 96–102. COOPER, Kate, “Household and Empire”, in EAD., The Fall of the Roman Household, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 93–142. COTTER, David W., Genesis (Berit Olam. Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. COTTER, Wendy, “The Collegia and Roman Law. State Restrictions on Voluntary Associations 64 BCE–200 CE”, in John S. KLOPPENBORG, Stephen G. WILSON (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996, 74–89. CRAIG, Clarence T., John SHORT, 1 Corinthians (The Interpreter’s Bible 10), New York: Abingdon, 1953, 3–262. CRAMME, Stefan, Die Bedeutung des Euergetismus für die Finanzierung städtischer Aufgaben in der Provinz Asia, doctoral dissertation at the University of Köln, 2001 ,http://deposit.ddb.de/cgibin/dokserv?idn=96238805x&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=96238805x.pdf (16.11.2008). CRANFIELD, C[harles] E. B., The Epistle to the Romans 2 (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. CRIBIORE, Raffaella, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. CROOK, Zeba, “Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited”, JBL 128.3 (2009) 591–611. CROUCH, James E., The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (FRLANT 109), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. CSAPO, Eric, “Riding the Phallus for Dionysus: Iconology, Ritual, and Gender-Role De/Construction”, Phoenix 51.3–4 (1997) 253–295. D D’AMBRA, Eve, Roman Women (Cambridge Introduction to Roman Civilization), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. D’ANGELO, Mary Rose, “«Knowing How to Preside Over His Own Household»: Imperial Masculinity and Christian Asceticism in the Pastorals, Hermas, and Luke–Acts”, in Stephen D. MOORE, Janice CAPEL ANDERSON (eds.), New Testament. Masculinities (Semeia Studies 45), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003, 265–295. —, “Euvse,beia: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals”, Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003) 139–165.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

424

Bibliography

DANKER, Frederick W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field, St. Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982. DAUTZENBERG, Gerhard, Urchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief (BWANT 104), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975. —, “Zur Stellung der Frauen in den paulinischen Gemeinden”, in Gerhard DAUTZENBERG, Helmut MERKLEIN, Karlheinz MÜLLER (eds.), Die Frau im Urchristentum Urchristentum (QD 95), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1983, 182–224. DE JONGE, Marinus, “The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve”, in Gary ANDERSON, Michael STONE, Johannes TROMP (eds.), Literature on Adam and Eve. Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 15), Leiden: Brill, 2000, 347–363. —, “The Literary Development of the Life of Adam and Eve”, in Gary ANDERSON, Michael STONE, Johannes TROMP (eds.), Literature on Adam and Eve (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 15), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, 239–249. DE JONGE, Marinus, Johannes TROMP, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. DE MOOR, Johannes C., “The First Human Being a Male? A Response to Professor Barr”, in Athalya BRENNER, Jan Willem VAN HENTEN (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures. Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam 12–13 May 1997, Leiden: DEO, 1999, 22í27. DE STE. CROIX, Geoffrey E.M., “Some Observations on the Property Rights of Athenian Women”, CR 20.3 (1970) 273–278. DEPALMA DIGESER, Elizabeth, “Religion, Law and the Roman Polity: The Era of the Great Persecution”, in Clifford ANDO, Jörg RÜPKE (eds.), Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome (Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 15), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006, 68–84. DESILVA, David A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. —, The Hope of Glory. Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009. DEVER, William G., Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005. DIBELIUS, Martin, Die Pastoralbriefe (HNT 13), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31955. —, Urchristentum und Kultur. Rektoratsrede gehalten bei der Stiftungsfeier der Universität am 22. November 1927, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928. DIBELIUS, Martin, Hans CONZELMANN, The Pastoral Epistles. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; transl. Philip Buttolph, Adela Yarbro), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. DIGNAS, Beate, Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford Classical Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. DILLON, Matthew, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London, New York: Routledge, 2002. DIXON, Suzanne, “Exemplary Housewife or Luxurious Slut? Cultural Representations of Women in the Roman Economy”, in Fiona MCHARDY, Eireann MARSHALL (eds.), Women’s Influence on Culture in Antiquity, London, New York: Routledge, 2004, 65–74. —, “The Sentimental Ideal of the Roman Family”, in Beryl RAWSON (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press / Clarendon Press, 1996, 99–113. —, Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi (Women of the Ancient World), London, New York: Routledge, 2007. —, The Roman Mother, Norman, London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. DMITRIEV, Sviatoslav, City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. DODDS, Eric R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Sather Classical Lectures 25), Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1953 (repr. 2004).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

425

DOHMEN, Christoph, Schöpfung und Tod. Die Entfaltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2–3 (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 35), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. DONAHUE, John F., The Roman Community at Table During the Principate, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004. DONELSON, Lewis R., Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. —, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. DONFRIED, Karl Paul, “Rethinking Scholarly Approaches to 1 Timothy”, in ID. (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18), Leuven: Peeters, 2008, 153–182. DOWNS, David J., The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2.248), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. DROGE, Arthur J., Homer Or Moses?: Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (HUT 32), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. DUNN, James D.G., Beginning from Jerusalem. Christianity in the Making II, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. DU TOIT, Andrie, “Paulus Oecumenicus: Interculturality in the Shaping of Paul’s Theology”, NTS 55 (2011) 121–143. —, “Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian Epistolography”, in ID., Focusing on Paul: Persuasion and Theological Design in Romans and Galatians (edited by Cilliers BREYTENBACH, David S. DU TOIT), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007, 45–56. E EAGLETON, Terry, Ideology: An Introduction, London: Verso, 1991. EBEL, Eva, Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine (WUNT 2.178), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ECK, Werner, “Ämter und Verwaltungstrukturen in Selbstverwaltungseinheiten der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit”, in Thomas SCHMELLER, Martin EBNER, Rudolf HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg: Herder, 2010, 9–32. EDWARDS, Catharine, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. EISEN, Ute E., Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical Press, 2000 (orig. Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum. Epigraphische und literarische Studien, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, transl. Linda M. Maloney). ELLIOTT, John H., A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ELLIOTT, Neil, “Romans 13:1–7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997, 184–204. —, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 97–122. ELLIS, Teresa A., “Is Eve the ‘Woman’ in Sirach 25:24?”, CBQ 73.4 (2011) 723–742. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Troels, Paul and the Stoics, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. ENGEL, David M., “Women’s Role in the Home and the State: Stoic Theory Reconsidered”, HSCPh 101 (2003) 267–288. ENGELMANN, Helmut, “Asiarchs”, ZPE 132 (2000) 173–175. —, “Philostrat und Ephesos”, ZPE 108 (1995) 77–87. EPP, Eldon J., Junia: The First Woman Apostle, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005. ESCH, Elisabeth, Andreas LEINHÄUPL-WILKE, “Auf die Spur gekommen. Plädoyer für eine leserorientierte Literarkritik in den ActThecl”, in Martin EBNER (ed.), Aus Liebe zu Paulus? Die

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

426

Bibliography

Akte Thekla neu aufgerollt (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 206), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005, 30–51. ESCH-WERMELING, Elisabeth, Thekla – Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten (NTA 53), Münster: Aschendorff, 2008. ESLER, Philip F., The Early Christian World I–II, London, New York: Routledge, 2000. F FARAONE, Christopher A., “Salvation and Female Heroics in the Parodos of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata”, JHS 117 (1997) 38–59. FATUM, Lone, “Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political Strategy”, in Jostein ÅDNA (ed.), The Formation of the Early Church (WUNT 1.183), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 175–207. FEE, Gordon D., 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Good News Commentaries), San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. —, Listening to the Spirit in the Text, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. —, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, 1987. FELDNER, Birgit, “Women’s Exclusion from the Roman Officium”, Forum Historiae Iuris (2002), http://rewi.hu-berlin.de/FHI/zitat/0209feldner.htm. FELLOWS, Richard G., “Was Titus Timothy?”, JSNT 81 (2001) 33–58. FERGUSON, Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. FERRER, Joan, “Imatge de Déu, un concepte ambigu”, in Armand PUIG I TÀRRECH (ed.), Imatge de Déu (Scripta Biblica), Barcelona: L’Abadia de Montserrat, 2006, 11–30. FINNEGAN, Rachel, Women in Aristophanes, Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1995. FIORE, Benjamin, “The Pastoral Epistles in the Light of Philodemus’ «On Frank Criticism»”, in John T. FITZGERALD, Dirk OBBINK, Glenn S. HOLLAND (eds.), Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSup 111), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 271–293. —, “Household Rules at Ephesus. Good News, Bad News, No News”, in John T. FITZGERALD, Thomas H. OLBRICHT, L. Michael WHITE (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (NovTSup 110), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, 589–607. —, The Pastoral Epistles. First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus (SP 12), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. —, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105), Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. FISCHLER, Susan, “Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos” in Lin FOXHALL, John SALMON (eds.), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, London, New York, 1998, 165–183. FITZMYER, Joseph A., “KephalƝ in I Corinthians 11:3”, Interpretation 47.1 (1993) 52í59. —, “The Meaning of KephalƝ in 1 Corinthians 11:3”, in ID., According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, New York: Paulist Press, 1993, 80–88. FLEMMING, Rebecca, “Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World”, CQ 57.1 (2007) 257–279. FOERSTER, Werner, “Euvsebh,j ktl)”, ThWNT 2 (1964) 175–184. FOLEY, Helene P., “The ‘Female Intruder’ Reconsidered: Women in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae”, CPh 77.1 (1982) 1–21. FONTENROSE, Joseph, The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses, Berkley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1978. FORBES, Cristopher, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment (WUNT 2.75), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. FORBIS, Elizabeth P., “Women’s Public Image in Italian Honorary Inscriptions”, AJPh 111.4 (1990) 493–512. FORTENBAUGH, William W., “Cicero, «On Invention» 1.51–77. Hypothetical Syllogistic and the Early Peripatetics”, Rhetorica 16.1 (1998) 25–46.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

427

FOXHALL, Linn, “Foreign Powers. Plutarch and Discourses of Domination in Roman Greece”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 138–150. FRENSCHKOWSKI, Marco, “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule. Gedanken zur Verfasserschaft der Deuteropaulinen”, in Friedrich Wilhelm HORN (ed.), Das Ende des Paulus. Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte (BZNW 106), Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001, 239–272. FREY, Jean-Baptiste, “La Signification des termes Monandros et univira”, Recherches de Science Religeuse 20 (1930) 48–60. FRIESEN, Steven J., “Asiarchs”, ZPE 126 (1999) 275–290. —, “High Priestesses of Asia and Emancipatory Interpretation”, in Elisabeth SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Shelly MATTHEWS, Cynthia BRIGGS KITTREDGE, Melanie JOHNSON-DEBAUFRE (eds.), Walk in the Ways of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2003, 136–150. —, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus”, JSNT 26.3 (2004) 323–361. —, “Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission: Corinth among the Churches”, in Daniel N. SCHOWALTER, Steven J. FRIESEN (eds.), Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (Harvard Theological Studies 53), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005, 352–370. —, Twice Neokoros, Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 116), Leiden: Brill, 1993. FÜRST, Alfons, “Christentum im Trend. Monotheistische Tendenzen in der späten Antike”, ZAC 9 (2006) 496–523. G GABRIELSEN, Vincent, “Brotherhoods of Faith and Provident Planning: The Non-Public Associations of the Greek World”, Mediterranean Historical Review 22.2 (2007) 183–210. —, “Non-Public Associations and the Public Subdivisions of the Hellenistic Polis”, paper presented at the International Symposium on Private Associations and the Public Sphere in the Ancient World, hosted by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen 9– 11 September 2010 (in a forthcoming volume edited by Vincent GABRIELSEN and Christian A. THOMSEN). —, “The Rhodian Associations and Economic Activity”, in Zofia H. ARCHIBALD, John DAVIES, Vincent GABRIELSEN, G.J. OLIVER (eds.),, Hellenistic Economies, London, New York: Routledge, 2001, 215–244. GACA, Kathy L., “The Reproductive Technology of the Pythagoreans”, CPh 95.2 (2000) 113–132. GALE, Xin Liu, “Historical Studies and Postmodernism: Rereading Aspasia of Miletus”, College English 62.3 (2000) 361–386. GARDNER, Jane F., “Aristophanes and Male Anxiety – The Defence of the ‘Oikos’”, Greece & Rome 36.1 (1989) 51–62. GARNSEY, Peter, Richard P. SALLER, “Patronal Power Relations”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997, 96–103. GARNSEY, Peter, Richard P. SALLER, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture, Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987. GEORGI, Dieter, “God Turned Upside Down”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997, 148–157. GIELEN, Marlis, “Die Wahrnehmung gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel der Paulusbriefe”, in Thomas SCHMELLER, Martin EBNER, Rudolf HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg: Herder, 2010, 129–165. —, Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik. Ein Beitrag zur Frage einer christlichen Auseinandersetzung mit gesellschaftlichen Normen (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 75), Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

428

Bibliography

GILL, Malcom, Jesus as Mediator. Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–7, Bern, Berlin, Brussels, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, 2008. GLANCY, Jennifer A., “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles”, in Stephen D. MOORE, Janice CAPEL ANDERSON (eds.), New Testament Masculinities (Semeia Studies 45), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003, 235–264. GLENN, Cheryl, “Sex, Lies, and Manuscript: Refiguring Aspasia in the History of Rhetoric”, College Composition and Communication 45.2 (1994) 180–199. GOFF, Barbara E., Citizen Bacchae: Women’s Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece, Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. GOLD, Barbara K., “‘The House I Live in is Not My Own’: Women’s Bodies in Juvenal’s Satires”, Arethusa 31.3 (1998) 369–386. GOLDEN, Mark, “Did the Ancients Care When Their Children Died?”, Greece & Rome 35.2 (1988) 152–163. GOMME, A.W., “Aristophanes and Politics”, CR 52.3 (1938) 97–109. GORDON, A.E., “A New fragment of the Laudatio Turiae”, AJA 54 (1950) 223–226. GORDON, Pamela, “Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the School of Epicurus”, in John T. FITZGERALD, Dirk OBBINK, Glenn S. HOLLAND (eds.), Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSup 111), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 221–243. GORDON, Richard, “The Veil of Power”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997, 126–137. GÖRGEMANNS, Herwig H., Barbara FEICHTINGER, Fritz GRAF, Werner G. JEANROND, Jan OPSOMER, Dialog über die Liebe: Amatorius von Plutarch (Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethica Religionemque Pertinentia 10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. GOULD, John, “Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens”, JHS 100 (1980) 38–59. GOULDNER, Michael, “The Pastor’s Wolves: Jewish Christian Visionaries behind the Pastoral Epistles”, NT 38.3 (1996) 242–256. GOURGUES, Michel, Les deux lettres à Timothée. La lettre à Tite (Commentaire biblique – Nouveau Testament 14), Paris: Cerf, 2009. GRANT, Robert M., Augustus to Constantine: The Rise and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004, 161–162. GRIFFIN, Miriam, Séneca: A Philosopher in Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1976 (repr. 2003). —, “De beneficiis and Roman Society”, JRS 93 (2003) 92–113. GRIFFITH, Mark, “Antigone and Her Sister(s). Embodying Women in Greek Tragedy”, in André LARDINOIS, Laura MCCLURE (eds.), Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, 117–136. GRIMM, Veronika E., From Feasting to Fasting: The Evolution of a Sin: Attitudes to Food in Late Antiquity, London, New York: Routledge, 1996. GRUBBS, Judith E., Women and Law in the Roman Empire. A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood, London, New York: Routledge, 2002. GÜNTHER, Rosmarie, “Matrona, vilica und ornatrix. Frauenarbeit in Rom zwischen Topos und Alltagswirklichkeit”, in Thomas SPÄTH, Beate WAGNER-HASEL (eds.), Frauenwelten in der Antike, Geschlechtsordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, Stuttgart, Weinmar: Metzler, 2000, 350–376. GUTHRIE, Donald, The Pastoral Epistles , Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 21990. GUTSFELD, Andreas,“Das Kollegium bei Tisch. Überlegungen zum Beitrag der Bankette zur sozialen Kohäsion in paganen Vereinen der frühen Kaiserzeit”, in Markus ÖHLER, Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen. Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung (WUNT I 280), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 161–204. GUTSFELD, Andreas, Dietrich-Alex KOCH (Hg.), Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (STAC 25), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

429

H HAACKER, Klaus, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (ThHKNT 6), Leipzig: EVA, 1999. HÄFNER, Gerd, “Die Gegner in den Pastoralbriefen und die Paulusakten”, ZNW 92 (2001) 42–77. —, “Die Pastoralbriefe (1 Tim/2 Tim/Tit)”, in Martin EBNER, Stefan SCHREIBER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007, 450–473. —, “Nützlich zur Belehrung” (2 Tim 3,16). Die Rolle der Schrift in den Pastoralbriefen im Rahmen der Paulusrezeption (HBS 25), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2000. HAHNEMAN, Geoffrey M., The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford Theological Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press (Clarendon), 1992. HAINES-EITZEN, Kim, “The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles on Papyrus: Revisiting the Question of Readership and Audience”, in Thomas J. KRAUS, Tobias NICKLAS (eds.), New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (Texts and editions for New Testament Study), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2006, 293–304. HALL, Edith, “Introduction: Aristophanic Laughter across the Centuries”, in Edith HALL, Amanda WRIGLEY (eds.), Aristophanes in Performance, 421 BC – AD 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs, London: Modern Humanities Research Association, Maney, 2007, 1–29. HALLEAUX, Maurice, “Décrets des auxiliaires crétois de Ptolémée Philométor, trouvé à Délos”, in Ulrich WILCKEN (ed.), Archiv für Papirusforschung und verwandte Gebiete, 6.3–4, Lepizig, Berlin: Teubner, 1920, 9–23. HALLETT, Judith P., “Centering from the Periphery in the Augustan Roman World: Ovid’s Autobiography in Tristitia 4.10 and Cornelius Nepos’s Biography of Atticus”, Arethusa 36 (2003) 345–359. —, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, l984. HALLO, William W., K. Lawson YOUNGER, The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. HAMILTON, Victor P., ~d'a,' in William A. VANGEMEREN (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997, 262–266. HANDS, Arthur R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968. HANSON, Ann E., “The Widow Babatha and the Poor Orphan Boy”, in Ranon KATZOFF, David M. SCHAPS (eds.), Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert (JSJSup 96), Leiden, Boston, 2005, 85–103. HARLAND, Philip A., “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity (I): ‘Brothers’ (ĮįİȜijȠȚ) in Associations of the Greek East”, JBL 124.3 (2005) 491–513. —, “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity II: ‘Mothers’ and ‘Fathers’ in Associations and Synagogues of the Greek World”, JSJ 38 (2007) 57–79. —, “Associations and Guilds. Varieties and Social Makeup”? in ID., Associations, Synagogues and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2003, 25–53. —, “Associations in Civic Context. Symptoms of Decline or Participants in Vitality?”, in ID., Associations, Synagogues and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2003, 89–112. —, “Christ-bearers and Fellow-initiates: Local Cultural Life and Christian Identity in Ignatius’ Letters”, JECS 11 (2003) 481–499. —, “The Declining Polis? Religious Rivalries in Ancient Civic Context”, in Leif E. VAAGE (ed.), Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 18), Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, 21–49. HARRIS, William V., Ancient literacy, Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press, 1989. HARRIS-CLINE, Diane, “Women and Sacred Property: The Evidence from Greek Inscriptions” (conference paper: Conference on Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Societies, Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University, 2003), http://zeus.chsdc.org/chs/files/women_property_cline.pdf.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

430

Bibliography

HARRISON, James R., “A Share in all the Sacrifices”, in S.R. LLEWELYN (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 9 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri 1986–1987), Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2002, 1–3. —, “Benefaction Ideology and Christian Responsibility for Widows”, in S.R. LLEWELYN (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 8 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri 1984–1985), Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998, 106–116. HARRISON, R. M., “Amorium 1987: A Preliminary Survey”, Anatolian Studies 38 (1988) 175–184. HATCH, Edwin, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford, in the year 1880, London: Rivingtons, 1882. HAWLEY, Richard, “Practicing What You Preach. Plutarch’s Sources and Treatment”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom, and A Consolation to His Wife, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 116–127. HAYS Richard B., First Corinthians (Interpretation), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. HECKEL, Theo K., “Audiatur et altera pars. Die Bedeutung der Gegner für die Exegese neutestamentlicher Briefliteratur”, paper presented at the 64th General Meeting of the SNTS, Vienna, August 5, 2009. HEMELRIJK, Emily A., “City Patronesses in the Roman Empire”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 53.2 (2004) 209–245. —, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’ of Roman collegia”, CA 27.1 (2008) 115–162. —, Matrona Docta Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (Routledge Classical Monographs), London, New York: Routledge, 1999. —, “Imperial Priestesses: A Preliminary Survey” in Lukas DE BLOIS, Peter FUNKE, Johannes HAHN (eds.), The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire (Impact of Empire 5), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2006, 179–193. —, “Masculinity and Femininity in the Laudatio Turiae”, CQ 54.1 (2004) 185–197. HENDERSON, Jeffrey, “Women and the Athenian Dramatic Festivals”, TAPA 121 (1991) 133–147. HERRMANN-OTTO, Elisabeth, “Verfassung und Gesellschaft Spartas in der Kritik des Aristoteles”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 47.1 (1998) 18–40. HERSHBELL, Jackson P., “Plutarch’s Political Philosophy: Peripatetic and Platonic”, in Lukas DE BLOIS, Jeroen BONS, Ton KESSELS, Dirk M. SCHENKEVELD (eds.), The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works I: Plutarch’s Statesman and His Aftermath: Political, Philosophical, and Literary Aspects (Mnemosyne Suppl. 250), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 151–162. HERZER, Jens, “Abschied vom Konsens? Die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe als Herausforderung an die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft”, ThLZ 129 (2004) 1267–1282. —, “Fiktion oder Täuschung? Zur Diskussion über die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe”, in Jörg FREY, Jens HERZER, Martina JANSEN, Clare K. ROTSCHILD, with Michaela ENGELMANN (eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in früchristlichen Briefen / Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters (WUNT 1.246), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 489–536. HEYOB, Sharon Kelly, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO 51), Leiden: Brill, 1975. HIGGINS, Jean M., “The Myth of Eve: The Temptress”, JAAR 44.4 (1976) 639–647. HILL, Lisa, “The First Wave of Feminism: Were the Stoics Feminists?”, History of Political Thought 22.1 (2001) 13–40. HOBBS, Raymond, “The Language of Warfare in the New Testament”, in Philip F. ESLER (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity. Social-scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context, London, New York: Routledge, 1995, 259–273, republ. 2005, 248–262. HOFMANN, Johannes, “Christliche Frauen im Dienst kleinasiatischer Gemeinden des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts. Eine prosopographische Studie”, VigChr 54.3 (2000) 283–308. HOLMES, J. M., Text in a Whirlwind. A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at Timothy 2.9–15 (JSNTSup 196), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. HORRELL, David G., “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre”, NTS 50 (2004) 349–369.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

431

—, “Disciplining Performance and ‘Placing’ th Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God (1 Tim 5,1–6,2)”, in Karl Paul DONFRIED (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18), Leuven: Peeters, 2008, 109–134. —, “From avdelfoi, to oi=koj qeou/: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity”, JBL 120.2 (2001) 293–311. —, The Social Ethos of the Corinthians Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. —, “Converging Ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and the Pastoral Epistles”, JSNT 50 (1993) 85–103. —, “The Development of Theological Ideology in Pauline Christianity. A Structuration Theory Perspective”, in Philip F. ESLER (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity. Social-scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context, London, New York: Routledge, 1995, 224–236. —, “Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity”, Sociology of Religion 58.4 (1997) 323–341. HORSLEY, G[regory] H.R., “A Freedman’s Dedication to his Patroness”, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 2 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1977), 1982, 60–61. —, “A More than Perfect Wife”, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 3 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1978), 1983, 33–36. —, “A Wealthy Devotee of Isis”, New Docs 3 (1983) 43–46. —, “A Woman’s Virtues”, New Docs 3 (1983) 40–43. —, “‘Charity Motivated by Piety’ in an Epitaph”, New Docs 2 (1982) 55–56. —, “Doctors in the Graeco-Roman World”, New Docs 2 (1982) 10–25. —, euvloge,w, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979), 1987, 151. —, “Maria the diakonos”, New Docs 2 (1982) 193–195. —, “Sophia, ‘the Second Phoibe’”, New Docs 4 (1987) 239–244. —, “The Mysteries of Artemis Ephesia in Pisidia: A New Inscribed Relief”, Anatolian Studies 42 (1992) 119–150. —, “The Purple Trade, and the Status of Lydia of Thyatira”, New Docs 2 (1982) 25–32. HORSLEY, Richard A. (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004. —, “Introduction. Jesus, Paul, and the «Arts of Resistance»: Leaves from the Notebook of James C. Scott”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 1–26. —, “Introduction: Krister Stendahl’s Challenge to Pauline Studies”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Politics: EkklƝsia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000, 1–16. —, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997. —, Paul and Politics: EkklƝsia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000. —, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, Harrisburg, London, New York: Trinity Press, Continuum, 2004. HORSTER, Marietta, “Living on Religion: Professionals and Personnel”, in Jörg RÜPKE (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), Oxford: Blackwell, 2007, 331–341. HULTGREN, Arland J., The Rise of Normative Christianity, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994. HURWIT, Jeffrey M., “Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos”, AJA 99.2 (1995) 171–186.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

432

Bibliography

I ÎLƖN, Tҍal, Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamzion and Other Jewish Women (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 115), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. IRIGARAY, Luce, “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” (transl. Eleanor H. Kuykendall), Hypatia 3.3. French Feminist Philosophy (1989) 32–44. J JEREMIAS, Joachim, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD 9), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. JEWETT, Paul K., Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. JOHNSON, Luke T., “First Timothy 1,1–20: The Shape of the Struggle”, in Karl P. DONFRIED (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18), Leuven: Peeters, 2008, 19–39. JOHNSON, Luke T., The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A), New York, London: Doubleday, 2001. JOHNSTON, Patricia A., “Poenulus I, 2 and Roman Women”, TAPA 110 (1980) 143–159. JONES, Christopher P., “Epigraphica IV–V”, ZPE 142 (2003) 127–133. JOSHEL, Sandra R., Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 11), Norman, OK, London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. K KADLETZ, Edward, “The Cult of Apollo Deiradiotes”, TAPA 108 (1978) 93–101. KALINOWSKI, Angela, “The Vedii Antonini: Aspects of Patronage and Benefaction in SecondCentury Ephesos”, Phoenix 56.1/2 (2002) 109–149. KARRER, Martin, “Das urchristliche Ältestenamt”, NovT 32.2. (1990) 152–188. KARRIS, Robert J., “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles”, JBL 92.4 (1973), 549–564. KAUFMANN-BÜHLER, Dieter,“Eusebeia,” RAC 6 (1966) 985–1052. KAWASHIMA, Robert S., “A Revisionist Reading Revisited: On the Creation of Adam and Then Eve”, VT 66.1 (2006) 46–57. KEARSLEY, Rosalinde A., “A Civic Benefactor of the First Century in Asia Minor”, in S.R. LLEWELYN, R.A KEARSLEY, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 7 (A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1982–1983), Marrickville, NSW: Southwood Press, 1994, 233–241. —,“Ephesus: Neokoros of Artemis”, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 6 (A Review of Inscriptions and Payri published in 1980–81), ed. S.R. Llewelyn, with R.A. Kearsley, 1992, 203–206. —, ‘…in Memory of Her’, NewDocs 4 (1987) 10–17. —, “The Mysteries of Artemis at Ephesus”, NewDocs 6 (1992) 196–202. —, “Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor: Hellenistic Tradition and Augustan Ideology”, Ancient West & East 4.1 (2005) 98–121. —, “Women in Public Life”, NewDocs 6 (1992) 24–27. —, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebee, Benefactress of Paul”, Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999) 189–211. KEESLING, Catherine M., “Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical periods – Three studies”, Hesperia 74.3 (2005) 395–426. KELLY, John N.D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus (Black’s New Testament Commentaries), London: A&C Black, 1963. KIDD, Reggie M., Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A “Bourgeois” Form of Early Christianity? (SBLDS 122), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. KING, Karen L., What is Gnosticism?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

433

KIRK, G.S., Myth. Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970, repr. 1973. KITZBERGER, Ingrid, Bau der Gemeinde: Das paulinische Wortfeld oivkodomh, / (evp)oikodomei/n (Forschung zur Bibel 53), Würzburg: Echter, 1986. KLAUCK, Hans-Josef, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis, Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2006. —, Der erste Korintherbrief (Die Neue Echter Bibel 7), Würzburg: Echter, 1984. —, “Die Hausgemeinde als Lebensform im Urchristentum”, in ID., Gemeinde–Amt–Sakrament. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven, Würzburg: Echter, 1989, 11–28. —, Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums I. Stadt- und Hausreligion, Volksglaube (Studienbücher Theologie 9,1), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Engl. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Studies of the New Testament and Its World), transl. Brian McNeil, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. —, “Gemeinde und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum – Ein Leitbild für die Zukunft?”, in ID., Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum. Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT 152), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 212–267. —, Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt: Kirche bei Paulus, Freiburg: Herder, 1992. —, “Junia Theodora und die Gemeinde von Korinth”, in Martin KARRER, Wolfgang KRAUS, Otto MERK (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes. Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000, 42–57. —, “Vom Reden uns Schweigen der Frauen in der Urkirche”, in ID., Gemeinde–Amt–Sakrament. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven, Würzburg: Echter, 1989, 232–245. KLINGHARDT, Matthias, “Hellenistisch-römische Staatsidee”, in Jürgen ZANGENBERG (ed.), Neues Testament und antike Kultur III. Weltauffassung – Kult – Ethos, Neurkirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011, 143–150. KLOPPENBORG, John S., Stephen G. WILSON, Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996. KNIGHT, George W., The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC)), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. KNITTEL, Thomas, Das griechische ‘Leben Adams und Evas’: Studien zu einer narrativen Anthropologie im frühen Judentum (TSAJ 88), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. KOCH, Dietrich-Alex, “Die Entwicklung der Ämter in frühchristlichen Gemeinden Kleinasiens”, in Thomas SCHMELLER, Martin EBNER, Rudolf HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg: Herder, 2010, 166–206. KOCHIN, Michael S., Gender and Rhetoric in Plato’s Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. KÖSTENBERGER Andreas, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2,12”, in Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, Thomas R. SCHREINER, H. Scott BALDWIN (eds.), Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995, 81–103. KÖTTING, Bernhard, Die Bewertung der Wiederverheiratung (der zweiten. Ehe) in der Antike und in der frühen Kirche (Rheinisch-Westfalische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vorträge Reihe G, 292), Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988. KOVACS, David, “Text and Transmission”, in Justina GREGORY (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Companions to the Ancient World), Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 2005, 379–393. HALLIWELL, Stephen, “Learning from Suffering: Ancient Responses to Tragedy”, in Justina GREGORY (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 2005, 394–412. KREMER, Jacob, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (RNT), Regensburg: Pustet, 1997. KÜBEL, Paul, “Eva, Pandora und Enkidus ‘Dirne’”, BibNot 82 (1996) 13–20. KÜCHLER, Max, Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier. Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung der Frauen auf den Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testaments im Antiken Judentum (NTOA 1), Freiburg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

434

Bibliography

KUNST, Christiane, “Eheallianzen und Ehealltag in Rom”, in Thomas SPÄTH, Beate WAGNERHASEL (eds.), Frauenwelten in der Antike, Geschlechtsordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, Stuttgart, Weinmar: Metzler, 2000, 32–52. —, “Ornamenta Uxoria. Badges of Rank or Jewellery of Roman Wives?”, The Medieval History Journal 8.1 (2005) 127–142. KUREK-CHOMYCZ, Dominika A., “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila”, JBL 125.1 (2006) 107–128. KVAM, Kristen E., Linda S. SCHEARING, Valarie H. ZIEGLER, Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999. L LACEY, W.K., The Family in Classical Greece, London: Thames&Hudson, 1968 (repr. 1972). LACHS, Samuel Tobias, “The Pandora–Eve Motif in Rabbinic Literature”, HThR 67.3 (1974) 341– 345. LAMPE, Peter, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, London: Continuum, 22006 (orig. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Tübingen, 1987, transl. M. Steinhauser). LAMPE, Peter, Ulrich LUZ, “Nachpaulinisches Christentum und pagane Gesellschaft”, in Jürgen BECKER, Christoph BURCHARD, Carsten COLPE (eds.), Die Anfänge des Christentums. Alte Welt und neue Hoffnung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987, 185–216. LANG, Friedrich Gustav, “Neues über Lydia? Zur Deutung von von »Purpurhändlerin« in Apg 16,14”, ZNW 100 (2009) 29–45. LAPIDE, Pinchas E., War Eva an allem Schuld? Gespräche über die Schöpfung, Mainz: Matthias– Grünewald, 1985. LATEINER, Donald, “«The Man Who Does Not Meddle in Politics»: A Topos in Lysias”, CW 76.1 (1982) 1–12. LAU, Markus, “Enthaltsamkeit und Auferstehung. Narrative Auseinandersetzungen in der Paulusschule”, in Martin EBNER (ed.), Aus Liebe zu Paulus? Die Akte Thekla neu aufgerollt (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 206), Stuttgart, 2005, 80–90. LEE, Michelle V., Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (SNTS MS 137), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. LEFKOWITZ, Mary R., Maureen B. FANT (eds.), Women in Greece and Rome, Toronto, Sarasota: Samuel–Stevens, 1977. LEVISON, Jack, “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24”, CBQ 47.4 (1985) 617– 623. LEVISON, John R., “The Exoneration and Denigration of Eve in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve”, in Gary ANDERSON, Michael STONE, Johannes TROMP (eds.), Literature on Adam and Eve. Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 15), Leiden: Brill, 2000, 251– 275. LIDONNICI, Lynn, “The Ephesian Megabyzos Priesthood and Religious Diplomacy at the End of the Classical Period”, Religion 29 (1999) 201–214. LIGHTMAN, Majorie, William ZEISEL, “Univira: An Example of Continuity and Change in Roman Society”, ChHist 46.1 (1977) 19–32. LIEFELD, Walter, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, L.J., “Man, Woman, and the Angels in 1 Cor 11:2–16”, in Gerard P. LUTTIKHUIZEN (ed.), The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Themes in Biblical Narrative 3), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, 76–92. LIETZMANN, H., “Notizen”, ZNAW 32 (1933) 310–315. LIEU, Judith M., “The ‘Attraction of Women’ in/To Early Judaism and Christianity: Gender and the Politics of Conversion”, JSNT 72 (1998) 5–22. LINDEMANN, Andreas, Der erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/I), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

435

—, “Die Kirche als Leib. Beobachtungen zur «demokratischen» Ekklesiologie bei Paulus”, in ID., Paulus, Apostel und Lehrer der Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, 132–157. —, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 58), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979. LLEWELYN S.R., “‘Slaves Obey your Masters’: The Legal Liability of Slaves”, New Docs 7 (1994) 163–196. LLEWELLYN-JONES, Lloyd, Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2003. LOCK, Walter, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus), (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. LOHFINK, Gerhard, “Weibliche Diakone im Neuen Testament”, in Gerhard DAUTZENBERG, Helmut MERKLEIN (eds.): Die Frau im Urchristentum (QD 95), Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 320– 338. LONGENECKER, Bruce W., “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity”, JSNT 31.3 (2009) 243–278. —, Remember the Poor. Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. LORAUX, Nicole, The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship and the Division Between the Sexes (foreword Froma I. Zeitlin, transl. Caroline Levine), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. LUCARELLI, Ute, Exemplarische Vergangenheit. Valerius Maximus und die Konstruktion des sozialen Raumes in der frühen Kaiserzeit (Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 172), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. LUZ, Ulrich, Der Brief and die Epheser in Jürgen BECKER, Ulrich LUZ, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser (NTD 8/1) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. —, “Stages of Early Christian Prophetism”, Sacra Scripta 5.1 (2007) 45í62. LYONS, Deborah, Review of K. Ormand, Exchange and the Maiden: Marriage in Sophoclean Tragedy, Austin, 1999, Bryn Mawr Classical Review, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/200002-25.html (2007.02.12), M MACDONALD, Dennis R., The Legend and the Apostle. The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1983. MACDONALD, Margaret Y., “Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management: Reading the Household Codes in Light of Recent Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives in the Study of the New Testament”, NTS 57 (2011) 65–90. —, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. The Power of the Hysterical Woman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. —, The Pauline Churches. Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (MSSNTS 60), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. MACMULLEN, Ramsay, “Woman in Public in the Roman Empire”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 29.2 (1980) 208–218. MADIGAN, Kevin, Carolyn OSIEK (eds.), Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History, Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. MALHERBE, Abraham J., “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth. 1 Timothy 6:3–19” Part I–II, NovT 52 (2010) 376–405; 53 (2011) 73–96. —, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles”, in W. Eugene MARCH (ed.), Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Christian Fathers. A Volume in Honor of Stuart Dickson Currie, San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1980, 19–35. —, Moral Exhortations: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Library of Early Christianity 4), Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

436

Bibliography

—, “Paul’s Self-sufficiency (Philippians 4:1)”, in John T. FITZGERALD (ed.), Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (NovTSup 82), Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996, 125–139. —, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 21983. —, “The Virtus Feminarum in 1 Timothy 2:9–15”, in Mark H. HAMILTON, Thomas H. OLBRICHT, Jeffrey PETERSON (eds.), Renewing Tradition. Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson (PTMS 65), Eugene, OR: Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2007, 45–65. —, Paul and the Thessalonians, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. MALINA, Bruce J., The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. MALINA, Bruce J., Jerome H. NEYREY, “Honor and Shame in Luke–Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterraneam World”, in Jerome H. NEYREY (ed.), The Social World of Luke–Acts, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991, 25–65. MANTZOULINOU-RICHARDS, Ersie, “Four Funerary Monuments from the Aegean Maritime Museum of Myconos”, ZPE 98 (1993) 168–170. MARE, W. Harold, 1 Corinthians (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 10), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976. MARGUERAT, Daniel, Les Actes des apôtres, Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007. —, “Paul après Paul: une histoire de reception”, NTS 54 (2008) 317–337. —, “The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts. A Phenomenon of Rereading”, Semeia 80.1. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (1997) 169–184. MARKSCHIES, Christoph, Gnosis. An Introduction (transl. John Bowden), London, New York: T&T Clark, 2003. MARROU, Henri-Irénée, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris: Seuil, 1948. MARSHALL, Anthony J., “Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia of Sentinum”, Phoenix 44 (1990) 56–58. MARSHALL, I. Howard, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC), London, New York: T&T Clark, 1999. MARSHALL, John W., “«I Left You in Crete»: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus”, JBL 127.4 (2008) 781–803. —, “Hybridity and Reading Romans 13”, JSNT 31.2 (2008) 157–178. ARSMAN, Hennie J., Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (Old Testament Studies 49), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. MARTIN, Dale B., “Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival”, JSNT 84 (2001) 51–64. MAURIZIO, Lisa, “Anthropology and Spirit Possession: A Reconsideration of the Pythia’s Role at Delphi”, JHS 115 (1995) 69–86. —, “The Voice at the Centre of the World. The Pythia’s Ambiguity and Authority”, in André LARDINOIS, Laura MCCLURE (eds.), Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, 38–54. MCCLURE, Laura (ed.), Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World. Readings and Sources (Interpreting Ancient History), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. —, Spoken Like a Woman. Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. MCCREADY, Wayne O., “EkklƝsia and Voluntary Associations”, in John S. KLOPPENBORG, Stephen G. WILSON (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996, 59–73. MCEVILLEY, Thomas, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, New York: Allworth Press, 2002. MCKECHNIE, Paul, “‘Women’s Religion’ and Second-Century Christianity”, JEH 47 (1996) 409– 431, republished in Everett FERGUSON (ed.), Christianity and Society: The Social World of Early Christianity, New York: Garland, 1999, 31–53. MCGINN, Sheila E., “Internal Renewal and Dissent in the Early Christian World”, in Philip F. ESLER (ed.), The Early Christian World 2, London, New York: Routledge, 2000, 893–906.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

437

MEADE, David G., Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. MEEKS, Wayne, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1983. MEGGITT, Justin J., Paul, Poverty and Survival, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. MEISER, Martin, “Ätiologie und Paränese: Schöpfung und Urgeschichte im ‚Leben Adams und Evas’”, in Tobias NICKLAS, Korinna ZAMFIR, Heike BRAUN (eds.), Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity in Honour of Hans Klein, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010, 201–223. —, “Institution und Charismatische Gemeindeleitung im Frühen Christentum”, SaSc 8.2 (2010) 157–164. MERKEL, Helmut, Die Pastoralbriefe (NTD 9,1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. MERKLEIN, Helmut, Marlis GIELEN, Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Kap. 11,2–16,24 (ÖTK 7,3; GTB 513); Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2005. MERKT, Andreas, “Das Problem der apostolischen Sukzession im Lichte der Patristik”, in Theodor SCHNEIDER, Gunther WENZ (eds.), Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer Nachfolge I (Dialog der Kirchen 12), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, 264–287. MERZ, Annette, Die Fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA 52), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. —, “Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy”, in Thomas L. BRODIE, Dennis MACDONALD, Stanley E. PORTER (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16), Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006, 113–132. —, “Gen(de)red power. Die Macht des Genres im Streit um die Frauenrolle in Pastoralbriefen und Paulusakten“, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 68.1 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1185. —, “Phöbe: Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä – eine wichtige Mitstreiterin des Paulus neuentdeckt”, in Adelheid M. VON HAUFF (ed.), Frauen gestalten Diakonie I. Von der biblischen Zeit bis zum Pietismus, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007, 125–140. METHUEN, Charlotte, “The ‘Virgin Widow’: A Problematic Social Role for the Early Church?”, HThR 90.3 (1997) 285–298. METTINGER, Tryggve N.D., The Eden Narrative. A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. METZGER, Bruce M., “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha”, JBL 91.1 (1972) 3–24. MICHEL, Otto, oi=koj ktl) , ThDNT 5 (1967, repr. 1981) 119–131. MIDDENDORP, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden: Brill, 1973. MILLARD, Alan R., Pierre BORDREUIL, “A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions”, BA 45.3 (1982) 135–141. MILLER, J. Edward, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus with a Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35”, JSNT 26.2 (2003) 217í236. MILLER, J. Maxwell , “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God”, JBL 91.3 (1972) 289–304. MILNOR, Kristina, “Augustus, History, and the Landscape of the Law”, Arethusa 40 (2007) 7–23. MITCHELL, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. MOMIGLIANO, Arnaldo, “Man and Woman in Roman Religion”, in ID., Nono contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, ed. Riccardo DI DONATO (Storia e letteratura 180), Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1992, 577–592. MOMMSEN, Theodor, De collegiis et sodaliciis Romanorum, Kiel: Libraria Schwersiana, 1843. MONOSON, S. Sara, “Remembering Pericles: The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato’s Menexenus”, Political Theory 26.4 (1998) 489–513. MONTAGUE, George T., First and Second Timothy, Titus (CCSS), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

438

Bibliography

MOO, Douglas, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men. 1 Timothy 2:11– 15”, in Wayne GRUDEM, John PIPER (eds.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991, 176–192. MORROW, Glenn R., Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. MOSSÉ, Claude, “Women in the Spartan Revolution”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Women’s History and Ancient History, Chapel Hill, London: University of North-Carolina Press, 1991, 138–153. MOSSMAN, Judith, “Women’s Speech in Greek Tragedy: The Case of Electra and Clytemnestra in Euripides’ «Electra»”, CQ 51.2 (2001) 374–384. MOTT, Stephen Charles, “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus II 10–14 and III 3–7”, NovT 20.1 (1978) 22–48. MOTTO, Anna Lydia, “Seneca on Trial: The Case of the Opulent Stoic”, CJ 61.6 (1966) 254–258. MOUNCE, William D., Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46), Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2000. MUELLER, Hans-Friederich, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus, London, New York: Routledge, 2002. MURPHY-O’CONNOR, Jerome, 1 Corinthians (NTM 10), Dublin: Veritas, 1979. —, “2 Timothy Contrasted with 1 Timothy and Titus”, RB 98.3 (1991) 403–418. —, “The First Letter to the Corinthians”, in Robert E. BROWN, Jospeh A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992, 798–815. MÜLLER-REINEKE, Hendrik, “Rarae fidei atque singularis pudicitiae femina – The Figure of Plotina in Apuleius’ Novel (Metamorphoses 7.6–7)”, Mnemosyne 61.4 (2008) 619–633. N NAGLE, D. Brendan, “Aristotle and Arius Didymus on Household and Polij”, RhM 145 (2002) 198–223. NAUTA, Ruurd R., Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Mnemosyne Sup. 206), Leiden: Brill, 2002. NEYREY, Jerome H., “«First», «Only», «One of a Few», and «No One Else». The Rhetoric of Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1 Timothy”, Bib 86 (2005) 59–87. —, “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in GrecoRoman Antiquity”, JSNT 27.4 (2005) 465–492. —, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. —, “ ‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype”, JSNT 26.1 (2003) 69–102. NICCUM, Curt, “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34–5”, NTS 43 (1997) 242–255. NICKLAS, Tobias, “Ämter? Auf-Gaben, Autorität und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Ein Blick in die Welt paulinischer Gemeinden”, paper presented at the conference Rechtsgelehrter – Prediger – Seelsorger. Rabbiner, Pastoren und Priester. Ihre Rollen im historischen Wandel, Regensburg, 19–22 September 2011. NILSSON, Martin P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2. Die hellenistische und römische Zeit, München: C.H. Beck, 41974 (repr. 1988). NIMIS, Stephen, “Autochthony, Misogyny, and Harmony: Medea 824–45”, Arethusa 40 (2007) 397–420. NISBET, R.G.M., “Felicitas at Surrentum (Statius, Silvae II. 2)”, JRS 68 (1978) 1–11. NOLLÉ, Johannes, “Frauen wie Omphale? Überlegungen zu ,politischen’ Ämtern von Frauen im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien”, in Maria H. DETTENHOHER (ed.), Reine Männersache? Frauen in Männerdomänen der antiken Welt, Köln, Weinmar, Wien: Böhlau, 1994, 229–259. NOORT, Ed, “The Creation of Man and Woman in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions”, in Gerard P. LUTTIKHUIZEN (ed.), The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Themes in Biblical Narrative 3), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, 1–18.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

439

NUSSBAUM, Martha C., “The Speech of Alcibiades: A Reading of the Symposium”, in ID., The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 165–199. O O’BRIEN, Joan, “Mami, Eve and Pandora: ‘What’s in a Name?’”, CJ 79.1 (1983) 35–45. OBBINK, Dirk, “The Stoic Sage in the Cosmic City”, in Katerina IERODIAKONOU (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, 178–195. OBERLINNER, Lorenz, Die Pastoralbriefe. Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (HThK XI/2) Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1994. —, Die Pastoralbriefe. Kommentar zum zweiten Timotheusbrief (HThK XI/2.2), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1995. —, Die Pastoralbriefe, Kommentar zum Titusbrief (HThKNT XI/2.3), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1996. —, “Gemeindeordnung und rechte Lehre. Zur Fortschreibung der paulinischen Ekklesiologie in den Pastoralbriefen”, ThQ 187 (2007) 295–308. —, “Öffnung zur Welt oder Verrat am Glauben?: Hellenismus in den Pastoralbriefen”, in Johannes BEUTLER (ed.), Der neue Mensch in Christus: hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament, Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2001, 135–163. —, “«Paulus» versus Paulus? Zum Problem des «Paulinismus» der Pastoralbriefe”, in Jost ECKERT, Martin SCHMIDL, Hanneliese STEICHELE (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes; Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag, Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001, 170–199. OEPKE, Albrecht, gunh,, ThWNT 1 (1933) 776–790. —, mesi,thj( mesiteu,w, ThWNT 4 (1942) 602–629. OGDEN, Daniel, Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Oxford Classical Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 364–375. OKLAND, Jorunn, Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space (JSNTSup 269), London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ORMAND K., “Silent by Convention? Sophocles’ Tekmessa”, AJPh, 117.1 (1996) 37–64. ORLIN, Eric, “Urban Religion in the Middle and Late Republic”, in Jörg RÜPKE (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), Oxford: Blackwell, 2007, 58–69. ORR, W.F., J.A. WALTHER, 1 Corinthians (AB 32), New York: Doubleday, 1976. OSGOOD, Josiah, “Eloquence under the Triumvirs”, AJPh 127 (2006) 525–551. OSIEK, Carolyn, David L. BALCH, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. OSIEK, Carolyn, Margaret Y. MACDONALD, with Janet H. TULLOCH, A Woman’s Place. House Churches in Earliest Christianity, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. OSTER, Richard E., “Ephesus as a religious Center under the Principate. Paganism before Constantine”, ANRW II.18.3 (1990) 1662–1728. —, “Holy Days in Honour of Artemis, New Docs 4 (1987) 74–82. —, Review of Richard Clark Kroeger, Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, 1992), BA 56 (1993) 225–227. P PANAGOPOULOS C[écile], “Vocabulaire et mentalité dans les Moralia de Plutarque”, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 3 (1977) 197–235. PANOUSSI, Vassiliki, “Polis and Empire: Greek Tragedy in Rome”, in Justina GREGORY (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Companions to the Ancient World), Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 2005, 413–427. PARKIN, Tim G., Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

440

Bibliography

PAYNE, Philip B., “1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of ouvde, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea”, NTS 54 (2008) 235–253. —, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1Cor 14.34–5”, NTS 41 (1995) 240í262. —, “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–5”, NTS 44 (1998) 152í158. —, “The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with a Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34–35: A Response to J. Edward Miller”, JSNT 27.1 (2004) 105í112. PAYNE, Philip B., Paul CANART, “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus”, NovT 42 (2000) 105í113. PENELLA, Robert J., “Philostratus’ Letter to Julia Domna”, Hermes 107.2 (1979) 161–168. PERRY, Jonathan S., The Roman Collegia: The Modern Evolution of an Ancient Concept (Mnemosyne Sup 277), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2006. PERVO, Richard I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 2006. —, “Romancing an Oft-Neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistolary Novel 1”, JHC 1 (1994) 25–47. —, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987. PESCH, Rudolph, Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1–12 and Apg 13–28) (EKK 5/1–2), Zürich: Benziger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986, 1994. PETERSON, Erik, “Ekklesia. Studien zum altkirchlichen Kirchenbegriff”, in ID., Ausgewählte Schriften. Sonderband, eds. Barbara NICHTWEIß, Hans-Ulrich WEIDEMANN, Würzburg: Echter, 2010, 9–83. PHILIPS, F. Carter, “Narrative Compression and the Myths of Prometheus in Hesiod”, CJ 68.4 (1973) 289–305. PIETERSEN, Lloyd K., The Polemic of the Pastorals. A Sociological Examination of the Development of Pauline Christianity (JSNTSup 264), London, New York: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2004. PILHOFER, Peter, Presbyteron kreitton. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT 2.39), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. PLEKET, Henry [Harry], “Wirtschaft”, in Friedrich VITTINGHOFF et al. (eds.), Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 1), Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1990, 25–160. POHLENZ, Max, Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51978. POKORNÝ, Petr, “Das theologische Problem der neutestamentlichen Pseudepigraphie”, in Petr POKORNÝ, Josef Bohumil SOUýEK, Bibelauslegung als Theologie (WUNT I.100), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 121–132. POKORNÝ, Petr, Ulrich HECKEL, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: seine Literatur und Theologie im Überblick (UTB), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. POLAND, Franz, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig: Teubner, 1909. POMEROY, Sarah B., Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: Representations and Realities, Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. —, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books, 1976. —, “Plato and the Female Physician (Republic 454d2)”, AJPh 99.4 (1978) 496–500. —, “Reflections on Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom. Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed”, in EAD. (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 33–42. —, Review of Riet van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and the Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Amsterdam, 1996), AHR 103.2 (1998) 491. —, Spartan Women, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. —, “Techikai kai Mousikai”, AJAH 2 (1977) 51–68. PORTEFAIX, Lilian, “Good Citizenship in the Household of God: Women’s Position in the Pastorals Reconsidered in the Light of Roman Rule”, Amy-Jill LEVINE, Marianne

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

441

BLICKENSTAFF (eds.), A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, London, New York: T&T Clark, 2003, 147–158. PORTER, Stanley E., “Method and Means of Analysis of the Opponents in the Pauline Letters”, paper presented at the 64th General Meeting of the SNTS, Vienna, August 5, 2009. —, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995) 105– 123. PÖLÖNEN, Janne, “The Division of Wealth between Men and Women in Roman Succession (ca. 50BC–AD 250)”, in Päivi SETÄLÄ, R. BERG, R. HÄLIKKAÄ, M. KELTANEN, J. PÖLÖNEN, V. VUOLANTO (eds.), Women Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 25), Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002, 147–179. PRICE, Simon R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. PRIOR, Michael, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup 23), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. PUSKAS, Charles B., The Letters of Paul: An Introduction (Good News Studies 25), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993, 182–183. Q QUAß, Friedemann, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993. QUINN, Jerome D., The Letter to Titus, A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (AB), New York, London: Doubleday, 1990. —, “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke–Acts to the Pastoral Epistles”, in Charles H. TALBERT (ed.), Perspectives on Luke–Acts, Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978, 62–75. QUINN, Jerome D., William C. WACKER, The First and Second Letter to Timothy, Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. R RAAFLAUB, Kurt A., “Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the Greco-Roman World”, in Ineke SLUITER, Ralph M. ROSEN (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Mnemosyne Sup 254), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 41–61. RADEMAKER, Adriaan, Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint: Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term (Mnemosyne Sup 259), Leiden: Brill, 2005. RADITSA, Leo Ferrero, “Augustus’ Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery”, Hildegard TEMPORINI (ed.), ANRW 2.13 Recht (Normen, Verbreitung, Materien) (1980) 278–339. RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, Marie-Thérèse, “Les activités publiques des femmes sénatorieles et équestres sous le Haute-Empire Romaine”, in Werner ECK, Matthäus HEIL (eds.), Senatores populi Romani: Realität und mediale Präsentation einer Führungsschicht: Kolloquium der Prosopographia Imperii Romani vom 11.–13. Juni 2004, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005, 169–212. RAMSBY, Teresa R., SEVERY-HOVEN, Beth, “Gender, Sex, and the Domestication of the Empire in Art of the Augustan Age”, Arethusa 40 (2007) 43–71. REDALIE, Yann, “ ‘Sois un modèle pour les croyants’. Timothée, un portrait exhortative, 1 Tm 4”, in Karl Paul DONFRIED (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Colloquium Paulinum 18), Leuven: Peeters, 2008, 87–108. RENBERG, Gil H., “Public and Private Places of Worship in the Cult of Asclepius at Rome”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 51–52 (2006–2007) 87–172. RICL, Marijana, “Two New Inscriptions from Alexandreia Troas”, Tekmeria 5 (2000) 127–133. RHODES, Peter J., “Sympoliteia”, in Hubert CANCIK, Helmuth SCHNEIDER, Manfred LANDFESTER, Der Neue Pauly, Leiden: Brill, 2011. (Brill Online University of Stellenbosch, 2011.10.01), http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=dnp_e1126880.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

442

Bibliography

RIST, John M., “Hypathia”, Phoenix 19.3 (1965) 214–225. —, “Plutarch’s ‘Amatorius’: A Commentary on Plato’s Theories of Love?”, CQ 51.2 (2001) 557– 575. —, Stoic Philosophy, Cambridge/London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1969. ROBERTSON, A., A. PLUMMER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (ICC), Edinburgh, 1911, 324–325. ROBINSON, Thomas A., The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 11), Lewiston, Queenston: Mellen, 1988. ROCHE, P. A., “The Public Image of Trajan’s Family”, CPh 97.1 (2002) 41–60. ROGERS, Guy M., “The Constructions of Women at Ephesos”, ZPE 90 (1992) 215–223. ROHRBAUGH, Richard L., “Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early Christians”, JAAR 52 (1984) 519–546. ROISMAN, Hanna M., “Women’s Free Speech in Greek Tragedy”, in Ineke SLUITER, Ralph M. ROSEN (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Mnemosyne Sup 254), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004, 91–114. ROLOFF, Jürgen, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK XV), Zürich: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988. —, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. —, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament (Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 10), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. —, “Pastoralbriefe”, TRE 26 (2000) 50–68. ROOSE, Hanna, “Dienen und Herrschen: Zur Charakterisierung des Lehrens in den Pastoralbriefen”, NTS 49 (2003) 440–446. ROSENBERG, Veit, Griechische Orakel. Eine Kulturgeschichte, Darmstadt: WBG, 2001. ROSKAM, Geert, Live Unnoticed (Lathe biǀsas). On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine (Philosophia antiqua 111), Leiden: Brill, 2007, 29–66. —, “Plutarch’s Life of Agis, or the Honourable Course of a Beginning Politician”, in Lukas DE BLOIS, Jeroen BONS, Ton KESSELS, Dirk M. SCHENKEVELD, Jan Maarten BREMER, Carolyn DOYLE, Edwin VAN MEERKERK, Aurelio Pérez JIMÉNEZ, Luc VAN DER STOCKT, Frances TITCHENER (eds.), The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, 227–241. ROSLER, Andrés, Political Authority and Obligation in Aristotle (Oxford Aristotle Studies), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ROTHWELL, Kenneth S., Politics and Persuasion in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, Leiden: Brill, 1990. ROY, Jim, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King”, in Lin FOXHALL, John SALMON (eds.), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, London, New York: Routledge, 1998, 111–135. RUNIA, David, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum ad Novum Testamentum 3), Assen: Van Gorcum, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. RÜPKE, Jörg, Die Religion der Römer. Eine Einführung, München: C.H. Beck, 2001. —, “Integrationsgeschichten: Gruppenreligionen in Rom”, in ID. (ed.), Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich. Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen (STAC 43), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 113–126. S SAÏD, Suzanne, “Plutarch and the People in the Parallel Lives”, in Lukas DE BLOIS, Jeroen BONS, Ton KESSELS, Dirk M. SCHENKEVELD, Jan Maarten BREMER, Carolyn DOYLE, Edwin VAN MEERKERK, Aurelio Pérez JIMÉNEZ, Luc VAN DER STOCKT, Frances TITCHENER (eds.), The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

443

International Plutarch Society Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, 133–143. SALKEVER, Stephen G., “Women, Soldiers, Citizens: Plato & Aristotle on the Politics of Virility”, Polity 19.2 (1986) 232–253. SALLER, Richard, “‘Familia, Domus’, and the Roman Conception of the Family”, Phoenix 38.4 (1984) 336–355. —, “Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household”, CPh 94.2 (1999) 182–197. —, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. —, “Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate”, CQ 34.1 (1984) 195–205. —, “Women, Slaves and the Economy of the Roman Household”, in David L. BALCH, Carolyn OSIEK (eds.), Early Christian Families in Context. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003, 185–204. SANDNES, Karl Olav, “EkklƝsia at Corinth: Between Private and Public”, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 3–4 (2007) 248–263. —, “Equality Within Patriarchal Structures. Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fellowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family”, in MOXNES, Halvor (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families: Family As Social Reality and Metaphor, London: Routledge, 1997, 150–165. SAXONHOUSE, Arlene W., “Family, Polity & Unity: Aristotle on Socrates’ Community of Wives”, Polity, 15.2 (1982) 202–219. SCAIFE, Ross, “Ritual and Persuasion in the House of Isomachus”, CJ 90.3 (1995) 225–232. SCHAEFER, Christoph, “Judentum und Gnosis? Die Gegnerpolemik im Titusbrief als Element literarischer Konstruktion”, in Hans-Ulrich WEIDEMANN, Wilfried EISELE (eds.), Ein Meisterschüler. Titus und sein Brief. Michael Theobald zum 60. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2008, 55–80. SCHAPS, David “The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women’s Names”, CQ 27.2 (1977) 323–330. —, “Women in Greek Inheritance Law”, CQ 25 (1975) 53–57. SCHARBERT, Josef, Genesis 1í11 (NEB), Würzburg: Echter, 1985. SCHEIDEL, Walter, “Stratification, Deprivation and Quality of Life”, in Margaret ATKINS, Robin OSBORNE (eds.), Poverty in the Roman World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 40–59. —, “The Most Silent Women of Greece and Rome: Rural Labour and Women’s Life in the Ancient World” I–II, Greece & Rome 42.2 (1995) 202–217; 43.1 (1996), 1–10. SCHINDLER, Alfred, “Häresie II. Kirchengeschichtlich”, TRE 14 (1985) 318–341. SCHLARB, Egbert, Die gesunde Lehre. Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe (Marburger theologische Studien 28), Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1990. SCHLIER, Heinrich, Der Römerbrief (HThKNT VI), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1977. SCHMIDT, K.L., evkklhsi,a, ThDNT 3 (1966), 501–536. SCHMITT PANTEL, Pauline, François LISSARRAGUE, “Banquet”, in Jean BALTY (ed.), Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum II: Purification, Initiation, Heroization, Apotheosis, Banquet, Dance, Music, Cult Images, Los Angeles: Getty, 2005, 220–229. SCHNACKENBURG, Rudolf, Ephesians: A Commentary, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991 (Der Brief an die Epheser [EKKNT X], Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982, transl. Helen Heron). SCHNEIDER, Gerhard, Die Apostelgeschichte I–II (HThKNT V/1–2), Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1980, 1982. SCHNEIDER, Johannes, s.v. timh, , tima,w, ThWNT 8 (1969) 170–177. SCHNELLE, Udo, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005 (orig. Paulus: Leben und Denken, Berlin, 2003). —, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 52005. SCHÖLLGEN, Georg, “Die diplh/ timh, von 1Tim 5,17”, ZNW 80.3–4 (1989) 232–239.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

444

Bibliography

—, “Was wissen wir uber die Sozialstruktur der paulinischen Gemeinden: kritische Anmerkungen zu einem neuen Buch von W. A. Meeks”, NTS 43.1 (1988) 71–82. SCHRAGE, Wolfgang, Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 1Kor 6,12–11,16 (EKK VII/2), Zürich: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995. —, Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 1Kor 15,1–16,24 (EKK VII/4), Zürich: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001. —, “»Ekklesia« und »Synagoge«. Zum Ursprung des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs”, ZThK 60 (1963) 178–202. SCHREINER, Thomas R., “An Interpretation of 1Tim 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship”, in Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, Thomas R. SCHREINER, H. Scott BALDWIN (eds.), Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Grand Rapids. MI: Baker, 1995, 105–154. SCHRÖTER, Jens, “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus. Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen”, ZNW 98 (2007) 77–104. SCHÜLE, Andreas, “Made in the ›Image of God‹: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen 1–3”, ZATW 117 (2005) 1–20. SCHULTZ, Celia, “Sanctissima femina: Gesellschaftliche und religiöse Praxis von Frauen in der Römischen Republik”, in Jörg RÜPKE (ed.), Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich. Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen (STAC 43), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 7–29. —, Women’s Religious Activity in the Roman Republic (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome), Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Elisabeth, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theolgical Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: SCM, 21995. —, “Paul and the Politics of Interpretation”, in Richard A. HORSLEY, Paul and Politics: EkklƝsia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (ed.), Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000, 40–57. SCHWIENHORST–SCHÖNBERGER, Ludger, Qohelet (HThKAT 28), Freiburg: Herder, 2004. SCOTT, Ernest F., The Pastoral Epistles (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary), London: Hodder and Stoughton, 71957. SCOTT, James C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1990. SCRAMUZZA, Vincent M., “Claudius Soter Euergetes”, HSCPh 51 (1940) 261–266. SEBESTA Judith Lynn, “Womens Costume and Feminine Civic Morality in Augustan Rome”, in Maria WYKE (ed.), Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, 105–117. SEEBASS, Horst, Genesis I. Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996. SENFT, Christophe, La première épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT II. VII), Lausanne, Paris: Labor et fides, 1979. SETTIPANI, Christian, Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l’époque imperiale. Mythe et realité. Addenda I–III (juillet 2000–octobre 2002), Oxford, 2000 Prosopographica et Genealogica, 2002, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prosop/publications/volume-two.pdf SEVERY, Beth, Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire, New York, London: Routledge, 2003. SEVE, Michel, “Un décret de consolation à Cyzique”, BCH 103.1 (1979) 327–359. SHAW, Michael, “The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth-Century Drama”, CPh 70.4 (1975) 255–266. SHEPARD KRAEMER, Ross, “Heresy as Women’s Religion, Women’s Religion as Heresy”, in EAD., Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, 157–173. SIRKS, A.J. Boudewijn, “Die Vereine in der kaiserlichen Gesetzgebung”, in Andreas GUTSFELD, Dietrich-Alex KOCH (eds.), Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (STAC 25), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 21–40. SKA, Jean-Louis, Introduzione alla lettura del Pentateuco. Chiavi per l'interpretazione dei primi cinque libri della Bibbia, Rome, 1998.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

445

SMITH, Craig A., Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect: A New Reading of 2 Timothy (NTM 12), Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. SOMMERSTEIN, Alan H., “Aristophanes and the Events of 411”, JHS 97 (1977) 112–126. SORDI, Marta, I cristiani e l’impero romano, Milano: Jaca Book, 1984. SOSIN, Joshua D., “Unwelcome Dedications: Public Law and Private Religion in Hellenistic Laodicea by the Sea”, CQ 55.1 (2005) 130–139. SPÄTH, Thomas, “,Frauenmacht’ in der frühen römische Kaiserzeit? Ein kritischer Blick auf die historische Konstruktion der ,Kaiserfrauen’”, in Maria H. DETTENHOFER (ed.), Reine Männersache? Frauen in Männerdomänen der antiken Welt, Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 1994, 132–157. SPEYER, Wolfgang, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 1.2), München: Beck, 1971. SPICQ, Céslas, Les Épîtres Pastorales I–II, Paris: Gabalda, 1969. STANDHARTINGER, Angela, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum”, NovT 48.1 (2006) 51–82. STAPLES, Ariadne, From Good Goddesses to Vestal Virgins. Sex and Category in Roman Religion, London, New York: Routledge, 1998. STÄHLIN, Gustav, Ch,ra, ThDNT 9 (1974, repr. 1976) 440–465. STEGEMANN, Ekkehard W., Wolfgang STEGEMANN, Urchristliche Sozialgeschichte: Die Anfänge im Judentum und die Christusgemeinden in der mediterranen Welt, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. STEHLE, Eva, “The Good Daughter. Mother’s Tutelage in Erinna’s Distaff and Fourth Century Epitaphs”, in André LARDINOIS, Laura MCCLURE (eds.), Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, 179–200. STIEFEL, Jennifer H., “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise…’ (1 Tim 3.11)”, NTS 41 (1995) 442–457. STOWERS Stanley K., “A Cult from Philadelphia: Oikos Religion or Cultic Association?”, in Abraham J. MALHERBE, Frederick W. NORRIS, James W. THOMPSON (eds.), Early Christianity in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson (NovTSup 90), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998, 287–301. STROOTMAN, Rolf, “Literature and the Kings”, in James J. CLAUSS, Martine CUYPERS (eds.), A companion to Hellenistic literature, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 30–45. SUMNEY, Jerry L., Colossians. A Commentary (The New Testament Library), Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox, 2008. —, ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul (JSNTSup 188), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. —, “Studying Paul’s Opponents”, in Stanley E. PORTER (ed.), Paul and his Opponents (Pauline Studies 2), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 7–58. SWAIN, Simon, “Plutarch’s Moral Program”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 85–96. T TAAFFE, Lauren K., Aristophanes and Women, London, New York: Routledge, 21994. TAKACS, Sarolta A., Vestal Virgins, Sibyls, and Matrons, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008. TALIAFERRO BOATWRIGHT, Mary, “Plancia Magna of Perge: Women’s Role and Status in Roman Asia Minor”, in Sarah B. POMEROY (ed.), Women’s History and Ancient History, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991, 249–272. TEMIN, Peter, “The Economy of the Early Roman Empire”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 20.1 (2006) 133–151. THEISSEN, Gerd, “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival”, JSNT 25.3 (2003) 371–391.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

446

Bibliography

—, “Soziale Integration und Sakramentales Handeln Eine Analyse Von 1 Cor. XI 17–34”, NovT 16.3 (1974) 179–206. —, “Social Stratification in the Corinthian Community: A Contribution to the Sociology of Early Hellenistic Christianity”, in ID., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Studies of the New Testament and its World), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982, 69–119. —, “Soziale Schichtung in der korintischen Gemeinde. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Hellenistischen Urchristentums”, in ID., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31989, 231–271. THIESSEN, Werner, Christen in Ephesus. Die historische und theologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe, Tübingen: Francke, 1995. THOMPSON, John B., “Symbolic Violence: Language and Power in the Writings of Pierre Bourdieu”, in ID., Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984, 42–72. —, “Theories of Ideology and Methods of Discourse Analysis: Towards a Framework for the Analysis of Ideology”, in ID., Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984, 73–147. —, “Ärger mit der Freiheit. Die Bedeutung von Frauen in Theorie und Praxis der alten Kirche, in Gerta SCHARFFENORTH, Klaus THRAEDE (eds.), Freunde in Christus werden...: die Beziehung von Mann und Frau als Frage an Theologie und Kirche, Gelnhausen, Berlin: Burckhardthaus, 1977, 31–182. THRAEDE, Klaus, “Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)”, RAC 5 (1962) 1191–1278. —, “Zum historischen Hintergrund der ‘Haustafeln’ des NT, in Ernst DASSMANN, K. Suso FRANK (eds)., Pietas. FS für Bernhard Kötting (JAC Ergängzungsband 8), Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlag, 1980, 359–368. THRALL, Margaret E., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians II (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. TIWALD, Markus, “Die vielfältigen Entwicklungslinien kirchlichen Amtes im Corpus Paulinum und ihre Relevanz für heutige Theologie”, in Thomas SCHMELLER, Martin EBNER, Rudolf HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg: Herder, 2010, 101–128. TOWNER, Philip, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT), Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. TREBILCO, Paul, Jewish communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991. —, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 1.166), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. —, “What Shall We Call Each Other? I: The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles”, Tyndale Bulletin 53.2 (2002) 239–258. —, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves h` evkklhsi,a?”, NTS 57 (2011) 440–460. TREGGIARI, Susan, “Jobs for Women”, AJAH 1 (1976) 76–104. —, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. —, Terentia, Tullia and Publilia, The Women of Cicero’s Family, London, New York: Routledge, 2007. TRIBLE, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Overtures to Biblical Theology), Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993. TRILLING, Wolfgang, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK 14), Zürich: Benziger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. TRUMMER, Peter, “Corpus Paulinum – Corpus Pastorale. Zur Ortung der Paulustradition in den Pastoralbriefen”, in Karl KERTELGE (ed.), Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften (QD 89), Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 122–145.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

447

TRUMMER, Peter, Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (BET 8), Frankfurt, Bern: Peter Lang, 1978. TSOUNA, Voula, The Ethics of Philodemus, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. TSOUYOPOULOS, Nelly, “Oikos, Oikonomia und die Stellung der Frau in der griechischen Antike by Xenophon und Aristoteles”, in Irmintraut RICHARZ (ed.), Haushalten in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Beiträge eines internationalen disziplinübergreifenden Symposions an der Universität Münster, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994, 41–49. TSUJI, Manabu, “Der zweite Timotheus als letzter Gefangenschaftsbrief”, Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review 11 (2006) 1–11. —, “Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha”, NTS 56 (2010) 253–272. TURPIN, José, “Cicéron, De legibus I–II et la religion romaine : une interprétation philosophique à la veille du principat”, in Wolfgang HAASE (ed.), ANRW 2.16.3. Religion (Heidentum: Römische Religion, Allgemeines) (1986) 1877–1908. TYRRELL, W. Blake, Larry J. BENNETT, “Pericles’ Muting of Women’s Voices in Thuc 2.45.2”, CJ 95.1 (1999) 37–51. V VAAGE, Leif E., “Why Christianity Succeeded (in) the Roman Empire”, in ID. (ed.), Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 18), Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, 253–278. VALLESKEY, Stephen P., “A Study of the Word Auqentew”, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File (1995), http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ValleskeyWord.pdf (2008.02.23). VAN BREMEN, Riet, “A Family from Sillyon”, ZPE 104 (1994) 43–56. —, The Limits of Participation: Women and the Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 15), Amsterdam: Gieben, 1996. —, “Women and Wealth”, in Averil CAMERON, Amélie KUHRT (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993, 223–242. VAN DEN BERGH, Rena, “The Role of Education in the Social and Legal Position of Women in Roman Society”, Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité 47 (2000) 351–364. VAN DER HORST, Pieter Willem, Aelius Aristides and the New Testament (Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 6), Leiden: Brill, 1980. VAN NESTE, Ray, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280), London, New York: T&T Clark / Continuum, 2004. VAN NIJF, Onno M., The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997. VAN RAALTE, Marlein, “More Philosophico: Political Virtue and Philosophy in Plutarch’s Lives”, in Lukas DE BLOIS, Jeroen BONS, Ton KESSELS, Dirk M. SCHENKEVELD, Jan Maarten BREMER, Carolyn DOYLE, Edwin VAN MEERKERK, Aurelio Pérez JIMÉNEZ, Luc VAN DER STOCKT, Frances TITCHENER (eds.), The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, 75–112. VAN RUITEN, J.T.A.G.M., Primaeval History Interpreted. The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 66), Leiden: Brill, 2000. VELISSAROPOULOS, Julie, Les Nauclères grecs. Recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Grèce et et dans l’Orient hellénisé (Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 9), Genève: Droz, 1980. VENENCIE Jacques, Séraphin CHARITONIDIS, Demetrios I. PALLAS, “Inscriptions trouvées à Solômos, près de Corinthe”, BCH 83.2 (1959) 496–508. VERBOVEN, Koenraad, “The Associative Order: Status and Ethos among Roman Businessmen in Late Republic and Early Empire”, Athenaeum: Studi periodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichità 95 (2007) 861–893.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

448

Bibliography

VERNANT, Jean-Pierre, “Feminine Figures of Death in Greece”, in ID., Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays (ed. Froma I. Zeitlin), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 95–110. —, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (transl. Janet Lloyd), New York: Zone Books, 1990. —, The Origins of Greek Thought, New York: Cornell University Press, 1982. VERNER, David C., The Household of God. The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBL Dissertations 71), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. VERVENNE, Marc, “Genesis 1,1–2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch”, in André WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction, History (BETL 155), Leuven: Peeters, 2001, 35–79. VEYNE, Paul, Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique, Paris: Seuil, 1976. VITTINGHOFF, Friedrich, “Gesellschaft”, in Friedrich VITTINGHOFF et al. (eds.), Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 1), Stuttgart: Klett–Cotta, 1990, 161–369. VIVIANO, Benedict, “The Christian and the State in Acts and Paul (Acts 25,16 and Rom 13,1–7). Roman Fairness Revisited”, in Daniel MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres (BEThL 229), Leuven: Peeters, 2009, 227– 238. VON LIPS, Hermann, Glaube–Gemeinde–Amt: Zum Verständnis der Ordination in den Pastoralbriefen (FRLANT 122), Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. —, Timotheus und Titus. Unterwegs fur Paulus (Biblische Gestalten 19), Leipzig: EVA, 2008. VON RAD, Gerhard, Genesis. A Commentary (Das erste Buch Mose, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), transl. J.H. Marks, London: SCM, 21963. W WAGENER, Ulrike, Die Ordnung des Hauses Gottes: der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesiologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe (WUNT 2.65), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. WAGNER, Jochen, Die Anfänge des Amtes in der Kirche. Presbyter und Episkopen in der frühchristlichen Literatur, Tübingen: Francke, 2011. WAGNER-HASEL, Beate, “Arbeit und Kommunikation”, in Thomas SPÄTH, Beate WAGNER-HASEL (eds.), Frauenwelten in der Antike, Geschlechtsordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, Stuttgart, Weinmar: Metzler, 2000, 311–335. —, Review of Riet van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and the Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Amsterdam, 1996), Gnomon 74.1 (2002) 23–28. WAITHE, Mary Ellen, “Aspasia of Miletus”, in EAD. (ed.), Ancient Women Philosophers I. 600 B.C.–500 A.D., Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, 75–81. —, “Late Pythagoreans: Themistoclea, Theano, Arignote, Myia, and Damo”, in EAD. (ed.), Ancient Women Philosophers I. 600 B.C.–500 A.D., Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, 11–17. WAITHE, Mary Ellen, with Vicki Lynn HARPER, “Early Pythagoreans: Aesata of Lucania, Phintys of Sparta, and Perictione I”, in Mary Ellen WAITHE, (ed.), Ancient Women Philosophers I. 600 B.C.–500 A.D., Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, 19–40. WALCOT, Peter, “On Widows and their Reputation in Antiquity”, Symbolae Osloenses 66.1 (1991) 5–26. —, “Plato’s Mother and Other Terrible Women”, Greece & Rome 34.1 (1987) 12–31. WALKER-RAMISCH, Sandra, “Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and the Damascus Document. A Sociological Analysis”, in KLOPPENBORG, John S., Stephen G. WILSON (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996, 128–145. WALSH, Brian J., Sylvia KEESMAAT, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. WALTZING, Jean-Pierre, Étude historique sur les corporations profesionnelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’occident I–IV, Louvain: Peeters, 1895, 1896, 1899, 1900.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

449

WARD, Roy Bowen, “The Public Priestesses of Pompei”, in Abraham J. MALHERBE, Frederick W. NORRIS, James W. THOMPSON (eds.), The Early Church in its Context. Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson (NovTSup 90), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998, 318–334. WASSERMANN, Felix M., “Serenity and Repose: Life and Death on Attic Tombstones”, CJ 64.5 (1969) 193–202. WALKER, William O., Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles (JSNTSup 213), New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. WATSON, Francis, “The Authority of the Voice: Reading of 1 Cor 11,2–16”, NTS 46 (2000) 520í536. WATSON, Patricia, “Juvenal’s Scripta Matrona: Elegiac Resonances in Satire 6”, Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 628–640. WEIDEMANN, Hans-Ulrich, “Ekklesia, Polis und Synagoge. Überlegungen im Anschluss an Erik Peterson”, in Erik PETERSON, Ekklesia: Studien zum altchristlichen Kirchenbegriff, Ausgewählte Schriften. Sonderband, edited by Barbara NICHTWEIß, Hans-Ulrich WEIDEMANN, Würzburg: Echter, 2010, 152–195. —, “»Paulus an die Ekklesia Gottes, die in Korinth ist«. Der Kirchenbegriff in Petersons Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefs”, in Giancarlo CARONELLO (ed.), Erik Peterson. Die theologische Präsenz eines Outsiders, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012, 259–296. —, “Titus, der getaufte Heide”, in Hans-Ulrich WEIDEMANN, Wilfried EISELE (eds.), Ein Meisterschüler. Titus und sein Brief (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 214), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2008, 31–54. WEIDINGER, Karl, Die Haustafeln: Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese (UNT 14), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1928. WEISER, Alfons, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKK XVI/1), Düsseldorf/Zürich: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. —, Die Apostelgeschichte. Kapitel 1–12 (ÖTK 5/1), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981. —, Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Christen nach den Pastoralbriefen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994. WEISS, Hans-Friedrich, Frühes Christentum und Gnosis. Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT I.225), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. WEIß, Johannes, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. WENDER, Dorothea, “Plato: Misogynist, Paedophile and Feminist”, in John PERADOTTO, J.P. SULLIVAN (eds.), Women in the Ancient World. The Arethusa Papers, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984, 221–228. WENHAM, Gordon J., Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. WENIN, André, “La question de l’humain et l’unité du livre de la Genèse », in ID., Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction, History (BETL 155), Leuven: Peeters, 2001, 3–34. WESTERMAN, Claus, Genesis I/1 (Genesis 1–11), (BKAT), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974. WEST, Martin L., “Towards Monotheism”, in Polymnia ATHANASSIADI, Michael FREDE (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, 20–40. WHITE, L. Michael, “Counting the Costs of Nobility: The Social Economy of Roman Pergamon”, in Helmut KOESTER (ed.), Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological and Historical Studies (HThS), Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1998, 331–371. WILCKENS, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer. Röm 12–16 (EKK VI/3), Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln: Benzinger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989. WILD, Robert A., “The Pastoral Letters”, in Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990, 891–902. WILES, David, “Menander’s ‘Dyskolos’ and Demetrios of Phaleron’s Dilemma: A Study of the Play in Its Historical Context – The Trial of Phokion, the Ideals of a Moderate Oligarch, and the Rancour of the Disfranchized”, Greece & Rome 31.2 (1984) 170–180. WILLETTS, Ronald F., Cretan Cults and Festivals, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1962.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

450

Bibliography

—, The Law Code of Gortyn (Kadmos, Zeitschrift für vor- und frühgriechische Epigraphik Sup. 1), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967. WILLIAMS, Craig A., Roman Homosexuality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22010. WILSHIRE, Leland Edward, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to ‘authenteo’ in I Timothy 2:12”, NTS 34 (1988) 120–134. WILSON, Robert McL., Gnosis and the New Testament, Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. —, “Gnosis/Gnosticizmus II. Neues Testament, Judentum, Alte Kirche”, TRE 13 (1984) 535–550. WILSON, Stephen G., “Voluntary Associations. An Overview”, in John S. KLOPPENBORG, Stephen G. WILSON (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, London, New York: Routledge, 1996, 1–15. —, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles, London: SPCK, 1979. WINTER, Bruce W., Roman Wives, Roman Widows. The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. —, “You Were What You Wore in Roman Law: Deciphering the Dress Codes of 1 Timothy 2:9–15” SBL Forum , n.p. [cited September 2009], http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=277. WITETSCHEK, Stephan, Ephesische Enthüllungen I. Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großstadt Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den Kontexten der Johannesapokalypse (Biblical Tools and Studies 6), Leuven, Paris, Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2008. WITHERINGTON, Ben, Letters And Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John, Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 2006. WOLFF, Christian, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (ThKNT 7), Leipzig: EVA, 22000. WOLFF, Hans Walter, Anthropology of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974. WOLTER, Michael, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. WOODHULL, Margaret L., “Matronly Patrons in the Early Roman Empire: the Case of Salvia Postuma,” in Fiona MCHARDY, Eireann MARSHALL (eds.), Women’s Influence on Culture in Antiquity, London, New York: Routledge, 2004, 75–91. WÖHRLE G., “Essen und Sexualität in der frühgriechischen, besonders iambischen Dichtung”, RhMus 143.2 (2000) 113–118. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira”, in Matthias HENZE (ed.), A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012, 363–388. Y YARBRO COLLINS, Adela, “The Female Body as Social Space in 1 Timothy”, NTS 57 (2011) 155– 175. YOUNG, Frances M., The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (NTT) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 YOUNGER, John J., “Women in Relief. ‘Double Consciousness’ in Classical Attic Tombstones”, in Nancy SORKIN RABINOWITZ, Lisa AUANGER (eds.), Among Women: from the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002, 167–210. Z ZAMFIR, Korinna, “Asceticism and Otherworlds in the Acts of Paul and Thecla”, in Tobias NICKLAS, Joseph VERHEYDEN, Florentino Garcia MARTINEZ, Erik EYNIKEL (eds.), Other Worlds and their Relation to this World. Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (JSJSup 143), Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010, 281–303. —, “Creation and Fall in 1 Timothy. A Contextual Approach”, in Tobias NICKLAS, Korinna ZAMFIR, Heike BRAUN (eds.), Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. In Honour of Hans Klein (DCLS 6), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010, 353–387. —, “Thanksgiving as Instrument of Legitimation in 1 Timothy 1,12–17”, Studia Universitatis Babeú-Bolyai. Theologia Catholica Latina 1 (2009) 3–14.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Bibliography

451

—, “The Quest for the ‘Eternal Feminine’. An Essay on the Effective History of Gen 1í3 Regarding the Woman”, ASE 24.2 (2007) 501–522. —, “The Topos of Female Hiddenness: A Contextual Reading of 1 Tim 2,9-15”, EThL 88.4 (2012) 475-487. ZAMFIR, Korinna, Joseph VERHEYDEN, “Text-critical and Intertextual Remarks on 1Tim 2:8–10”, NovT 50.4 (2008) 376–406. ZANKER, Paul, “The Power of Images”, in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997, 72–86. ZEITLIN, Froma I., “Patterns of Gender in Aeschylean Drama: Seven against Thebes and the Danaid Trilogy”, in Mark GRIFFITH, Donald J. MASTRONARDE (eds.), Pages of Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990, 103–115. —, “Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality, and the Feminine in Greek Drama”, Representations 11 (1985) 63–94. ZIEHEN, Ludwig, qeolo,goj, in Georg WISSOWA, Wilhelm KROLL, Karl MITTELHAUS (Hg.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, zweite Reihe, V.A.2 (Thapsos– Thesara), Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1934, 2031–2033.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

BIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1,1í2,4a 1,26–27 1,27 233, 1–2 1–3 2,7 2,20 2,21–24 2,23 2,24 2–3 3,6 3,7 3,12–13 3,13 3,16

239 233, 235, 238 239 235, 241, 243 239, 241, 262 233 234 233 234 234, 242 232, 252, 254 244 244 251 245, 246, 257 243, 244, 245, 257, 262

Exodus 4,22 237 Numbers 3,45 237 Deuteronomy 11,10 237 19,15 6 23,19 74

26,15 74 1 Samuel 2,1 148 1 Kings (3 Kgds) 7,31.37 74 8,1 74 Esdras 6,12 74 6,16–17 74 6,22 74 Tobit 1,8 347 Judith 8,4–8 354 9,1 74 11,17 354 16,22 354 Job 1,21 152 9,32–33 149 9,33 149 Psalms 41,5 74 89,28 237 115,10 74 121,9 74

122,1 Proverbs 3,13–18 8,22 Qohelet 5,14 Wisdom 7,6 12,6 Sirah 17,1–7 17,6 18,6 25,24 Jeremiah 12,7 Ezekiel 16,49 Daniel 5,22–23 Hosea 8,1 9,8.15 Zechariah 9,8

74 256 237 152 153 228 239, 241 256 231 249 74 365 74 74 74 74

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 6,20 6,26 10,2 16,17 19,30 20,10.16 20,27 Mark 6,21 9,35 10,31 10,44

230 230 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237

Luke 1,46 1,54 2,11 2,30 2,36–37 3,6 13,30 18,4 19,47 John 1,15 1,30

148 142 148 148 354 148 237 230 237 237 237

20,4 20,8 21,7 4,42 8,53–58 Acts 5,6 5,10 5,31 6,2–6 7 8,2 8,5.35

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

237 237 237 148 237 47 47 148 351 352 47 352

Index

454 8,12.38 9,9 11,27 13,1 13,7.12 13,23 13,45 13,45.50 13,50 14,1–2 14,4–6 14,19 14,23 15,32 16,1 16,20–21 16,21 18,18.26 18,26 19,19 19,29 20,4 20,17.28 20,17–35 20,35 21,29 21,9–10 25,2 27 27,2 27,7–13 28,17 28,28 Romans 2,3–5 2,7.10 2,28 3,10 5,12–14 5,16–19 7,11 8,7 9,6–7 9,16 9,20–23 9,21 11,13 11,21 11,30–32 12,4–5 12,4–8 12,6–7 12,6–8

352 230 280 280 50 148 10 8 10, 237 8, 10 8, 10 8, 10 284 280 347 176 230 349 342, 349 182 283 283 11 10 142 283 280 237 7, 8 283 8 237 148 281 110 231 231 247 247 246 231 231 231 116 110 352 231 176 52 64 285 65, 281

12,8 285 12,10 110 13,1–7 146 13,7 110 14,3.6 175 14,15 175 14,21 175 15,20 75 15,24–28 8 16,1 57, 306, 350 16,1–2 57, 281, 306 16,3 349 16,5 49, 50, 341 16,6 281 16,7 281, 285 16,9 281 16,12 281, 341 16,17 246 16,18 246 16,21 342 16,23 39, 281, 283 1 Corinthians 1–3 64 2,2 64 2,6 231 2,16 164 3,2 231 3,5 352 3,8 52 3,9 64 3,9–10 75 3,16 64 3,16–17 75 3,18 246 4,3 231 5,1 231 6 64 7,7–8 175 7,8.40 357, 360 7,32–34 175 7,38 175 8,8 175 8,10 175 8,13 175 9,5 341 9,25 126 10,16–17 47 10,17 52 11 240 11,2–5 238 11,3 238, 243 11,5 340, 342, 343, 344

11,7 11,7–12 11,8–9 11,10 11,11–12 11,16 11,17–34 11,20–23 11,33–34 11,34–35 12,12–13 12,12–27 12,17–18 12,28

238, 240 238, 243 238 238 239, 240 231 73 47 47 133 52 64 65 65, 237, 280, 285 12,28–30 281 12–14 64 14,19 340 14,26–31 340 14,31 340, 343 14,33–35 73, 340 14,33b–36 341 14,34 227, 344 14,34–35 342, 343 14,34–36 238 15,5 237 15,8–10 10 15,9 49 15,21–22 247 15,24–28 238 15,45–47 237 15,45–49 247 15,50 231 15,51–52 68 16,15 57 16,19 349 2 Corinthians 11,2–3 257 11,3 246, 247, 248, 252, 256 11,5 246 11,5–7 246 11,22–23 246 12,11–12 246 2,12–13 8 3,6 352 6,4 352 6,16 75 7,12 231 8,1.6 8 Galatians 1,1 231 1,13 10, 49

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index 1,13–16 1,16–17 1,23 2,1–10 3,19–20 3,28 4,14 4,24–26 4,26 Ephesians 1,1 1,10 1,15 1,18 2,12 2,19–20 2,19–22 4,11 5

10 231 10 176 149 17, 52, 140, 231 231 73 71, 73 76 76 76 76 75 394 73, 75 280 17, 61, 66, 148, 227, 238 238 148 227 283

5,22–24 5,23 5,24 6,21 Philippians 1,1 55, 56, 281, 285, 341 2,2 52 2,16 230, 231 3,6 10, 49 3,20 71, 73, 148 3,20–21 68 4,5 68 Colossians 1 66 1,15 237 1,17–18 237 3,18 61, 227 4,7 283 4,10 283 4,14 283 4,15 49, 50, 57 1 Thessalonians 2,3 231 3,1–2.6 8 3,2 342 4,15–17 68 4,17 73 4,4 110 5,2–6 68 5,5 231 5,12 55, 281, 285, 341

5,20 281 2 Thessalonians 2,3 246 3,7–8 231 3,11–12 185 1 Timothy 1,1 148, 282 1,2 23, 162, 348 1,2–3 9, 23, 162, 240 1,3 8, 163, 168, 180, 284 1,3.18 284 1,3–4 33, 138 1,4 166, 173, 284 1,5.19 346, 347 1,6–7.19 346 1,7 167, 177 1,7–9 177 1,9–10 189, 218 1,10 9, 25, 163 1,12 23, 25, 99, 160, 162 1,12–15 99 1,12–17 25, 236, 239 1,12–19 25 1,15 23, 239 1,15–16 10 1,16 23 1,17 111, 149, 236, 239 1,18 126, 282 1,18–19 9, 23, 25, 162, 240 1,19 23, 347 1,20 180 2,1–2 47, 138, 146 2,1–7 147 2,1–3,13 xii 2,2 68, 107, 147, 226 2,3 148 2,3–5 105, 146, 148, 150, 259, 364 2,4 148, 149, 165, 171, 173, 190 2,4–7 150 2,5 22, 149, 167 2,6 149 2,7 9, 22, 162, 282 2,8 61, 97, 106, 138 2,8–10 47 2,8–15 xii, 61, 97, 392

455 2,9 2,9–10

2,9–15

2,10 2,10–14 2,11

2,11–12

2,11–14 2,11–15 2,12

2,13 2,13–14 2,13–15 2,14

2,14–15 2,15

3,1 3,1–13 3,2

3,2–3 3,2–13 3,3

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

44, 108, 127, 137, 343 127, 337, 362, 363, 364, 371, 384 195, 196, 216, 226, 338, 343, 392 99, 107, 117, 225, 240, 356 225 35, 127, 138, 140, 158, 189, 217, 238, 340, 343 xii, 57, 127, 137, 163, 195,217, 232, 340, 343, 344, 351, 363, 383, 384 140, 217, 226 xx, 138, 189, 218, 238, 252 35, 86, 133, 138, 180, 195, 228, 229, 231, 232, 257, 287, 338, 349, 351, 392 238, 239, 240, 241, 243 252 232 34, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 256, 257 245, 257 108, 127, 166, 245, 260, 261, 262, 264, 277, 359, 365, 371, 383 23, 117, 229 279 11, 53, 107, 120,121, 123, 138, 162, 164, 283, 356 123, 139 117 120, 121

Index

456 3,4 3,4–5 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8 3,8–9 3,8–10 3,8.11 3,9 3,10 3,11 3,12

3,13 3,14 3,15

3,16 3,17 4,1 4,1–2 4,2 4,3

4,3–4 4,4 4,4–5 4,6 4,7 4,7–8 4,10 4,11 4,11–12 4,11–15 4,12 4,14 4,16 5,1 5,1–2 5,1–6,2 5,3 5,3.5

26, 107, 119, 158, 227 45, 60, 63, 79, 138 119 352 99, 106, 107, 138 120, 341 120 139 107, 350 47, 352 56, 83, 120 57, 338, 35, 351, 352 26, 45, 60, 63, 79, 119, 123, 138, 356 117, 118 243, 245, 248 xviii, 44, 48, 60, 75, 76, 78, 138, 394 47, 57, 167 117 34, 282, 346 346 34 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 218, 260, 264 166, 171 174, 175 174 164 33, 138, 173, 180, 181 171 126, 148 138 164 283 123, 124 47, 114, 282, 284, 285 117, 261 56, 138 123 61 66, 111, 112, 116, 138, 354 354

5,3–8 5,3–16

355 66, 106, 138, 185, 353 5,4 355 5,4.8 353 5,4–8 47 5,4.16 365 5,5 354 5,5–7 353 5,5–10 354 5,6 127, 337, 354, 362, 365, 371, 383 5,7 138 5,8.13 194 5,9 138, 354, 356, 358, 359, 360 5,9–10 47, 353, 354 5,9.11–12 354 5,9–12 338 5,9–14 xii 5,9–15 353 5,9–16 354 5,10 117, 260, 262,263, 354, 356, 364 5,10.14 277, 359 5,11 138, 354 5,11–12 356 5,13 18, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 338, 354, 361, 383 5,13–14 366 5,14 60, 97, 99, 127, 137, 138, 260, 263, 338, 360, 371, 383 5,15 34, 361 5,16 47, 57, 138, 353, 354 5,17 11, 111, 112, 115, 116, 283 5,17–18 55 5,17–20 xii 5,19–22 138 5,20 138 5,22 284 5,25 117 6,1 108, 110, 111 6,1–2 xii, 26, 44, 116, 138, 140, 141,

6,2

6,3 6,3.5 6,3–5 6,4 6,5 6,5–10 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9 6,9–10 6,10 6,11 6,12 6,12–14 6,13 6,14 6,16 6,17 6,17–18 6,17–19 6,18 6,20 2 Timothy 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,5 1,6 1,6–7 1,7 1,8 1,8–9 1,10 1,11 1,12 1,12–14 1,13 1,13–14 1,14

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

144, 158, 218, 280 61, 111, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145 33, 163, 180, 283 124 120, 218 33 34 152 153 152, 153, 157, 231 153 153 xii, 44, 218 149, 153 120, 123, 138 126 9, 120 138, 147 164 111 138, 153 364 xii, 43, 152, 158 57, 117, 356 9, 23, 138, 165, 172, 173 125, 282 348 346 260, 261, 263, 277, 346, 347 47, 263, 282, 284, 285, 347 23, 162 107, 125 99, 124 147 47, 148 9, 22, 23 9, 23, 124 23 23, 138, 163, 164, 240 23, 162, 189, 240 138

Index 1,15 1,15–16 1,16 1,18 2,1 2,1–2 2,1.3–5 2,2 2,3 2,6 2,8 2,11 2,14 2,14–15 2,15 2,16–18 2,17 2,18 2,20 2,20–21 2,21 2,22 2,24–25 2,23 2,24 2,24–25 2,25 2,26 3,1 3,1–9 3,1–9.13 3,2–5 3,3 3,5 3,6 3,6–7

3,7 3,8–10 3,10 3,11 3,14 3,14–15 3,17 4,1–2.5 4,3 4,3–4 4,4 4,5

189 25 8, 57 8 125 138, 240 125 9, 23, 33, 284, 348 125, 164 125, 138 138 282 33, 138 189 116, 125, 138 33, 116, 189 25, 34, 180 167 60 110, 116, 120, 394 117, 356 116, 138 116 33, 116, 138 138 189 165, 173, 190 107 138 189 189 218 352 34 35, 121, 127 34, 35, 121, 180, 181, 189, 191, 338 127, 165, 173, 182, 184, 194 25 283 8, 10, 99 23, 138, 262 189 356 189 9, 34, 124, 163 189 33, 173, 190 138, 162

4,6 4,6–8 4,7 4,9.21 4,10 4,10–11 4,10–12 4,11 4,14 4,16–18 4,19 4,19–21 Titus 1,1 1, 2–4.5a 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,5–9 1,6 1,6–7 1,6–11 1,7

1,8 1,8–9 1,9 1,10 1,10.14 1,10.16 1,10–16 1,11 1,12 1,13 1,14 1,15–16 1,16 2,1 2,1–10 2,1.15 2,2 2,2–10 2,2–5

457

147 9 126 138 283 25 283 283 9, 25, 180 99 283, 342, 346, 349 349

2,3

164, 165, 173, 190, 282 162 148 47 7, 8, 9, 11, 23, 33, 56, 284 xii 45, 63, 79, 107, 158, 356 117, 120, 139, 164 120 60, 69, 120, 121, 138, 278, 356, 395 53, 107, 120, 121, 123, 356 283 9, 25, 163 34, 53, 121, 166, 176 53, 176 176 185 23, 33, 34, 124, 163, 186, 284 34, 124, 282 25, 33, 138 33, 166, 176 218 365 9, 23, 61, 107, 162, 163, 283 61 138, 185 107 138 xii

2,6.15 2,7 2,7–8 2,8 2,9 2,9–10

2,3–4 2,3–5 2,4 2,4–5 2,4.11 2,5

2,10 2,10–13 2,11 2,11–14 2,11–3,5 2,12 2,13 2,14 2,15 3,1 3,1.8 3,4–6 3,5 3,6 3,8 3,10 3,11 3,12 3,1–2 3,14 4,11 Philemon 1–2 Hebrews 8,6 9,15 10,32–34 11,8–12 12,2 12,22–24 12,24

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

18, 107, 164, 229, 257, 338, 352 127 18, 164, 229, 338 112, 260, 263, 359 108, 257 277 26, 60, 97, 99, 107, 127, 137, 158, 189, 227, 263 138 107, 176, 356 23 163 26, 61, 227 xii, 44, 61, 111, 140, 158, 279 25, 148 47 148 185 146 68, 108, 120 148 357 138 138, 146, 151, 227 356 47 47, 282 148 23, 138, 176 138 25, 34, 124 138, 283 61 182, 184 138 57 149 149 125 71 126 71 149

Index

458 13,14 James 5,5 1 Peter 2,18

71

3,1.5 4,17 2 Peter 1,8

365

227 76 182

227

1 John 3,6 230 Revelation 18,20 280 21,9–22,5 71

APOCRYPHA 2 Baruch 48,42 54,15 54,19 56,6 1 Enoch 69,6 2 Esdras 3,21

250 250 250 250 249 250

Greek Life of Adam and Eve 7,1–3 249 9,2 249 10,1–11,3 249

14,2–25,4 249 15,2 249 15,3 249 20,1–4 249 20,1–21,5 249 27,2 249 32,1–2 249 Jubilees 2,13–14 239 3,6.8–9 239 3,8 239 3,21 249, 250 3 Maccabees 2,29 228

4 Maccabees 18,7–9a 246 18,10ff 347 Testament of Dan 6,2 149 Testament of Joseph 6,2 182 Testament of Ruben 3,4 182 Acts of Paul and Thecla 39 344 41 344 43 345

EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES 1 Clement 5,7 61 Didache 2.26.6 3.12.2–4 8.19.1–2 8.28.6–8

Apostolic Constitutions 2.26.3 351 3.1.1–2 354 3.6.1–2 354 3.11.3 351 8.13.14 351 3.19.20 351

8 147 351 351 351 351

Didascalia Apostolorum 2.28.2–4 115 3.1.1–2 354 3.6.1–2 354 Muratori Fragment 38–39 8

ANCIENT AUTHORS A Aelius Aristides 76, 77, 198, 225, 296 Aeschines 82, 210 Aeschylus 29, 88, 102, 131, 132, 199, 207, 334, 335 Aesop 133 Ambrose 242 Antipater 268, 269 Apollodorus Comicus 152 Appian 215, 380, 381, 382 Apuleius 28, 35, 66, 222, 301, 333, 382, 386

Aristophanes xvii, 78, 87, 90, 96, 106, 132, 133, 151, 208, 210, 223, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 356, 389 Aristotle xvii, 29, 77, 80, 91, 93, 94, 101, 109, 118, 121, 122, 131, 135, 139, 150, 174, 183, 197, 198, 199, 203, 204, 219, 223, 233, 236, 242, 271, 274, 290, 295, 296, 372, 373, 374, 375, 389

Pseudo-Aristotle xvii, 80, 121, 134, 188, 223, 265, 267, 275, 278 Arius Didymus 80 Athenaeus 122, 296 Augustine 242 Aulus Gellius 128, 376 C Callicratidas 81, 94, 198, 225, 374 Callistratus 131 Cato the Elder 96, 137, 202, 358, 376, 378, 379

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index Celsus 46, 66 Chion of Heraclea 151 Chrysippus 78, 266, 295 Chrysostom, John 248, 341, 350, 351 Cicero, M. Tullius xvii, 13, 14, 29, 64, 78, 80, 81, 96, 98, 104, 118, 121, 122, 124, 139, 141, 157, 190, 191, 210, 212, 216, 220, 222, 233, 236, 268, 276, 298, 317, 323, 367, 382 Cleanthes 79 Columella xvii, 91, 96, 292, 299, 373, 374 Cornelius Nepos 299 Crates 192, 224, 266 D Demosthenes 29 Dio Cassius 29, 77, 109, 203, 204, 271, 272, 378 Dio Chrysostom 13, 64, 76, 78, 79, 148, 184, 257, 296 Diodorus Siculus 152, 236, 377 Diogenes Laertius 109, 127, 152, 154, 155, 191, 197, 198, 209, 212, 224, 266, 295, 386 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 64, 184, 205, 221, 271, 322 Diotogenes 81, 101, 155 E Epictetus 13, 64, 155, 174, 200, 233, 268, 270, 370 Epicurus 154, 155, 212 Euripides xvii, 88, 89, 129, 153, 182, 183, 188, 199, 207, 208, 223, 274, 334, 335, 365 Eusebius 8, 46, 113 F Flavius, Josephus 64, 231, 243, 251, 303 G Gaius 191, 311 Galen 66 H Herodot 128, 274, 334, 335

Hesiod 132, 208, 219, 222, 235, 253, 254, 255 Hierocles (Stoic) 92, 95, 96, 197, 200, 269, 290, 375, 389 Hippocrates 265 Hippolytus 113 Homer 193, 194, 201, 213, 235 Horace 128, 273, 376, 413 I Iamblichus 128, 135, 191 Ignatius 354, 357 Isaeus 275, 367 Isocrates 82, 83, 91, 101, 102, 103, 104, 120, 125, 139, 150, 265 J Jerome 358 Juvenal 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 275, 367, 368, 369, 376 L Lactantius 46 Livy (Titus Livius) xiii, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 64, 96, 124, 130, 191, 202, 205, 315, 322, 357, 378, 379, 380 Lucian 12, 34, 46, 66, 152, 181, 190, 193, 296 Lysias 208, 237, 265, 357 M Maximus of Tyre 296 Melissa (Neopythagorean) 105, 259, 369 Menander 90, 153, 154, 156, 188, 189, 254, 265, 321 Minucius Felix 35 Musonius Rufus, C. 13, 95, 101, 103, 154, 156, 191, 192, 193, 200, 269, 270, 278, 290, 389, 415 O Okkelos (Occelus Lucanus) 81, 198, 233,374 Onasander 83, 103, 113 Origen 46, 113, 256, 350 Ovid 30, 128, 192, 382 P Pausanias 133, 253, 296, 325, 334, 357, 358

459 Perictione 135, 204, 258, 259, 269, 369 Philemon 203 Philo 13, 29, 64, 77, 78, 149, 198, 236, 242, 250, 251, 256, 258 Philodemus 78, 80, 155, 156, 223, 229, 298 Philostratus 210, 316 Phintys 94, 95, 105, 259, 364, 369 Plato xvii, 8, 28, 29, 34, 64, 79, 80, 82, 83, 92, 93, 100, 101, 102, 106, 109, 132, 163, 173, 174, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 192, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 209, 210, 211, 224, 233, 236, 242, 258, 265, 266, 276, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 334, 359, 372, 389 Plautus 13, 376, 378 Pliny the Younger 30, 51, 66, 83, 112, 118, 192, 220, 224, 225, 271, 319, 350 Plutarch xiii, xvii, 13, 34, 62, 64, 80, 82, 104, 109, 119, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 177, 182, 183, 184, 188, 191, 192, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 210, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 233, 236, 259, 267, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 290, 294, 296, 318, 322, 334, 336, 356, 358, 364, 370, 372, 373, 374, 375, 377, 382, 389 Polybius 13, 82, 124, 149, 228, 231, 302, 366 Polycarp 8 Porphyry 128, 191 Propertius 192, 357 Pythagoras 128, 135, 151, 209, 224, 235, 259, 386 Q Quintilian 13, 191, 215, 221, 236, 276, 296

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

460 S Sallust 191, 192 Seneca the Elder 366 Seneca the Younger 13, 14, 34, 64, 78, 79, 83, 103, 141, 142, 143, 144, 154, 155, 157, 191, 193, 203, 204, 233, 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 298, 300, 301, 315, 358, 364, 371 Socrates 29, 82, 91, 92, 93, 101, 118, 155, 173, 204, 209, 210, 211, 213, 220, 222, 223, 235, 294 Socrates (historian) 213 Sophocles xvii, 82, 88, 102, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 152, 199, 200, 207, 208, 264, 275 Soranus 258, 360 Statius 318, 358 Stobaeus 80, 92, 96, 105, 155, 156, 184, 186, 192,

197, 203, 220, 268, 269, 375 Strabo 15, 174, 181, 320, 334 Suda 212 Suetonius 29, 77, 146, 190, 203, 271, 272, 315, 318, 319, 378 T Tacitus xiii, 83, 96, 104, 136, 154, 203, 204, 273, 277, 299, 319, 333, 359, 367, 376, 377, 383, 389 Tertullian 46, 115, 219, 253, 257 Thales 133, 235 Theano 128, 135, 224, 259, 260, 269, 277 Theodoret of Cyrus 245, 351 Theodorus of Mopsvestia 351 Theophrast 29, 80, 186, 191, 192, 212

Theophylact 238 Thucydides 102, 134, 139, 209, 236, 265, 334 U Ulpian 84, 315 V Valerius Maximus xiii, 24, 29, 96, 130, 191, 214, 215, 221, 271, 273, 318, 357, 358, 377, 381, 382 Vergil 190, 194 X Xenophon xvii, 76, 80, 82, 91, 92, 102, 106, 118, 121, 131, 132, 139, 150, 192, 198, 200, 209, 210, 220, 222, 223, 224, 233, 267, 274, 276, 292, 294, 296 Z Zaleuchos of Locris 377 Zeno (Stoic) 266

MODERN AUTHORS A Adkins, Arthur 101 Agusta-Boularot, Sandrine 212, 335 Aland, Barbara 166, 175 Aletti, Jean-Noël 146 Alexander, Christine 50, 51, 331 Alföldy, Géza 38, 39, 40, 150 Amundsen, Darrel 360 Arnaoutoglu, Ilias 30 Ascough, Richard 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 113, 330 Asmis, Elizabeth 95, 268, 269 Athanassiadi, Polymnia 35 Aune, David 133, 282, 334, 335 B Bagnall, Roger 42, 367

Balch, David 14, 38, 66, 80, 197, 198, 199, 204, 258, 268, 269, 270, 364, 389 Baldwin, H. Scott 229 Barclay, John 27, 39, 41, 42, 55, 236 Barnes, Jonathan 212 Barr, James 234 Barresi, Paolo 308 Barrett, Anthony 318 Barrett, Charles 10, 11 Bartman, Elizabeth 368, 368 Barton, Stephen 49, 51, 52, 53 Bartsch, Hans-Werner xii, 344 Bassler, Jouette 176, 179, 354, 357, 359, 365 Baudy, Dorothea 28, 29, 31 Bauer, Walter 4, 165, 168, 169 Baum, Armin Daniel 3, 5 Bauman, Richard 31 Beck, Roger 52

Bendlin, Andreas 51, 55 Bennett, Larry 134, 376 Berg, Ria xvii, 365, 367, 368, 380, 382 Berger, Klaus 48, 49, 71, 72, 73 Berger, Peter 26, 48, 92 Bernhardt, Rainer 368 Bertholet, Florence 96 Betz, Hans Dieter 47 Beyer, Hermann 54 Bieringer, Reimund 339, 341, 343 Bjelland Kartzow, Marianne 18, 171, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 208, 259, 349, 352, 353 Blackman, D.J. 304 Blok, Josine 299, 323 Bolfă-Otic, Victoria 351 Bonhöffer, Adolph Friedrich 233, 268, 269 Bordreuil, Pierre 234 Borgen, Peder 47

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index Bosworth, Albert B. 134 Boudreau Flory, Marleen 342 Boughton, Lynne 345 Boulet, Bernard 151 Bourdieu, Pierre 20, 26, 169 Bouteneff, Peter 235, 244 Bowie, Ewen 296 Bradshaw, Leah 197 Bremmer, Jan 173, 253, 322, 325 Brenk, Frederick 155 Briggs Kittredge, Cynthia 17 Briggs, Sheila 123 Brock, Roger 297 Brooten, Bernadette 385 Brown, A.S. 132, 252, 254, 255 Brown, Eric 80 Brown, Lucinda 19, 23, 25, 26, 150 Brown, Peter 233 Brown, Raymond 55, 350 Brox, Norbert 2, 4, 5, 10, 118, 165, 166, 167, 179, 232, 239, 261, 262, 263, 347, 348, 350, 353, 355, 356, 359 Bruce, Frederick 42, 343 Bryant, Joseph 127 Buckler, William 49 Burkert, Walter 173 Burrell, Barbara 327, 328 Burrus, Virginia 35, 36, 169, 180 Burton, Diana 299 Burton, Joan 133, 299 Butler, George R. 253 Büyükkolanci, Mustafa 123 Byrne, Shannon 190 C Cairns, Douglas 100, 101, 102, 104, 125 Campanile, M. Domitilla 327 Canart, Paul 343 Cancik, Hubert 50 Cancik-Lindemaier, Hildegard 331 Carey, Chris 292 Carter, Warren 17

Carvalho, Corrine xiv Castelli, Elizabeth 35, 180, 220 Chamoux, François 75 Charitonidis, Séraphin 122 Chisholm, Robert 234 Claassen, Jo-Marie 382 Clark Kroeger, Catherine 179, 229 Clark Kroeger, Richard 179, 229 Clark, Gillian 220, 358, 367, 380 Clifford, Richard 234 Cline, David 234 Clinton, Kevin 333 Cohen, David 323 Cohn, Dorrit 211 Coleman, James 21 Collins, John 152, 241, 249, 252, 253 Collins, Raymond xiv, 2, 10, 15, 64, 65, 74, 75, 76, 107, 115, 117, 147, 154, 155, 156, 165, 167, 226, 261, 263, 264, 280, 347, 348, 349, 350, 356, 357, 359, 365 Collins, Susan 209 Connelly, Joan 322, 323, 329, 333, 386 Connolly, A.L. 24, 206, 305, 368 Conzelmann, Hans 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23, 33, 61, 78, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 155, 161, 165, 167, 179, 181, 182, 187, 203, 226, 246, 262, 263, 264, 274, 343, 353, 355, 356, 357, 359, 364 Cook, J.M. 304 Cook, John 341, 342 Cooley, Alison 332 Cooley, Melvin 332 Cooper, Kate 367 Cotter, David 234, 239, 244 Cotter, Wendy 30 Craig, Clarence 343 Cramme, Stefan 113, 328 Cranfield, Charles 341, 342 Cribiore, Raffaella 212

461 Crook, Zeba 98 Csapo, Eric 293 D D’Ambra, Eve 275 D’Angelo, Mary Rose 79, 120 Danker, Frederick 141, 156, 308 Dautzenberg, Gerhard 140, 228, 282, 285, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343 de Jonge, Marinus 249, 251 de Moor, Johannes 234 de Ste. Croix, Geoffrey 39, 372 DePalma Digeser, Elizabeth 28, 30 DeSilva, David xiv, 98, 99, 100, 125, 126 Dever, William 384 Dibelius, Martin xiv, 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 33, 58, 61, 78, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 138, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 155, 161, 165, 167, 179, 181, 182, 187, 203, 226, 246, 262, 263, 264, 274, 353, 355, 356, 357, 359, 364 Diers, Carol Jean 360 Dignas, Beate 324, 325 Dillon, Matthew 297, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 334, 335 Dixon, Suzanne 271, 274, 276, 299, 300, 318 Dmitriev, Sviatoslav 113, 122, 304, 305, 306, 311, 312, 313, 315, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329 Dodds, Eric 334, 335 Dohmen, Christoph 234, 244 Donahue, John 55 Donelson, Lewis R. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 22, 23, 24, 25, 61, 66, 67, 68, 75, 150, 239 Donfried, Karl 2, 6, 11 Downs, David 53, 296 Droge, Arthur 235 du Toit, Andries 33, 34, 48, 172

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

462 Dunn, James 48, 49 E Eagleton, Terry 19, 20 Ebel, Eva 47, 55 Eck, Werner 310 Edwards, Catharine 366 Eisen, Ute 351, 354 Elliott, John 17, 172 Elliott, Keith 228 Elliott, Neil 39, 146 Ellis, Teresa249 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 268 Engel, David 95, 192, 266, 268 Engelmann, Helmut 123, 327, 328 Epp, Eldon 341, 343 Esch(-Wermeling), Elisabeth 345 Esler, Philip xiv F Fant, Maureen 300 Faraone, Christopher 291, 293 Fatum, Lone 5, 10, 11, 12, 24, 26, 60, 68, 97, 168, 171, 176 Fee, Gordon 2, 6, 343 Feldner, Birgit 318 Fellows, Richard G. 5 Ferguson, Everett 55 Ferrer, Joan 234 Finnegan, Rachel 291, 292, 293, 294 Fiore, Benjamin xii, xiv, 2, 10, 23, 76, 82, 86, 97, 111, 112, 113, 149, 151, 153, 155, 167, 171, 174, 180, 218, 239, 249, 261, 339, 344, 347, 349, 350, 351, 353, 356, 357, 361, 364 Fischler, Susan 315 Fitzmyer, Joseph 238 Flemming, Rebecca 297 Foerster, Werner 120 Foley, Helene 208, 291, 292, 293, 320 Fontenrose, Joseph 334, 335 Forbes, Cristopher 335, 335 Forbis, Elizabeth 320

Fortenbaugh, William 210 Foxhall, Linn 206 Frede, Michael 35 Frenschkowski, Marco 3, 4 Frey, Jean-Baptiste 357 Friesen, Steven 39, 41, 42, 43, 305, 311, 327, 328 Fürst, Alfons 35 G Gabrielsen, Vincent 40, 46, 51, 53, 54, 330 Gaca, Kathy 269 Gale, Xin Liu 209, 210 Gardner, Jane 293 Garnsey, Peter 41, 43, 47, 51, 53, 55, 113 Georgi, Dieter 18 Gielen, Marlis 14, 161, 234, 238, 239, 283, 340, 341 Gill, Malcom 147, 148 Glancy, Jennifer 62, 79, 152, 181, 190, 361 Glenn, Cheryl 127, 209, 210 Goff, Barbara 333 Gold, Barbara 187 Golden, Mark 274 Gomme, A.W. 291 Gordon, A.E. 381 Gordon, Pamela 127, 191, 212 Gordon, Richard 122 Görgemanns, Herwig 200, 202 Gould, John 88, 128, 200, 252, 254, 265, 293, 297, 320, 322, 323, 372 Gouldner, Michael 167, 176 Gourgues, Michel 350 Grant, Robert 113 Griffin, Miriam 118 Griffith, Mark 88, 130, 132, 134, 199 Grimm, Veronika E. 177 Grubbs, Judith E. 300 Günther, Rosmarie 298, 299, 367 Guthrie, Donald 107, 142, 167, 350 Gutsfeld, Andreas 55 H Haacker, Klaus 341, 342

Häfner, Gerd 6, 115, 165, 167, 174, 181, 247, 248, 262, 263, 282 Haines-Eitzen, Kim 181 Hall, Edith 296 Halleaux, Maurice 122 Hallett, Judith 190, 216 Halliwell, Stephen 90 Hallo, William xiii Hamilton, Victor 233 Hands, Arthur 113, 308 Harland, Philip 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 330 Harris, William 220, 221, 298 Harris-Cline, Diane 323, 367 Harrison, James 110, 112, 355 Harrison, R. M. 328 Hatch, Edwin 56 Hawley, Richard 224 Hays, Richard 343 Heckel, Theo 170, 171, 172 Heckel, Ulrich 3 Hemelrijk, Emily 51, 52, 55, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 210, 220, 221, 224, 225, 299, 300, 309, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 330, 331, 332, 358, 381, 382 Henderson, Jeffrey 208, 292, 293, 299 Herrmann-Otto, Elisabeth 373 Hershbell, Jackson 296 Herzer, Jens 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Heyob, Sharon Kelly 330 Higgins, Jean 244, 256 Hill, Lisa 95 Hobbs, Raymond 125 Hofmann, Johannes 342, 387 Holmes, J. M. 218, 226, 365 Horrell, David 26, 27, 39, 60, 61, 65, 68, 86, 141, 170, 171, 343 Horsley, Gregory 49, 51, 52, 53, 105, 112, 275, 298, 309, 324, 330, 351, 354, 381 Horsley, Richard 17, 18

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index Horster, Marietta 336 Hultgren, Arland 165, 169, 353 Hurwit, Jeffrey 253 I ÎlƗn, Tҍal 303 Irigaray, Luce 211 J Jeremias, Joachim 118, 182, 353 Jewett, Paul 239, 240, 241 Johnson, Luke 2, 6, 9, 61, 171, 181, 239, 350, 351, 353 Johnston, Patricia376, 378 Jones, Christopher 327 Joshel, Sandra 367 K Kadletz, Edward 335 Kalinowski, Angela 315, 327, 328 Karrer, Martin 114, 123 Karris, Robert 33, 34, 152, 171, 181, 189 Kaufmann-Bühler, Dieter 13, 173 Kawashima, Robert 234 Kearsley, Rosalinde 05, 122, 300, 302, 305, 306, 307, 311, 313, 318, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 341 Keesling, Catherine 321 Keesmaat, Sylvia 17 Kelly, John 350 Kidd, Reggie xiv, 13, 14, 15, 37, 43, 44, 45, 53, 57, 67, 97, 98, 108, 111, 114, 118, 141, 142, 152, 156, 157, 164, 353, 363, 365 King, Karen 169, 170, 303 Kirk, G.S. 253 Kitzberger, Ingrid 75 Klauck, Hans-Josef xiv, 3, 7, 47, 48, 51, 55, 70, 167, 238, 306, 339, 341, 343, 378, 386 Kloppenborg, John 46, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 330, 331 Knight, George 342, 350, 353, 355 Knittel, Thomas 249 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 280

Kochin, Michael S. 132 Köstenberger, Andreas 230 Kötting, Bernhard 356, 357, 358 Kovacs, David 90 Kremer, Jacob 344 Kübel, Paul 253, 254, 255 Küchler, Max 237, 240, 245, 246, 247, 262 Kunst, Christiane 5, 137, 220, 224, 367, 380 Kurek-Chomycz, Dominika 342 Kvam, Kristen E. 244 L Lacey, W.K. 220, 299, 372 Lachs, Samuel 253 Lampe, Peter 43, 44, 50, 365 Lang, Friedrich Gustav 298 Lapide, Pinchas 234, 241, 244 Lateiner, Donald 151 Lau, Markus 167 Lee, Michelle 64, 65 Lefkowitz, Mary 300 Leinhäupl-Wilke, Andreas 345 Levison, Jack 249 Levison, John 249 LiDonnici, Lynn 325 Liefeld, Walter 2 Lietaert Peerbolte, L.J. 238 Lietzmann, Hans 50 Lieu, Judith 31, 35 Lightman, Majorie xvii, 273, 357, 358 Lindemann, Andreas 5, 10, 64, 65, 245, 246, 340, 343 Lissarrague, François 156 Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd 88, 128, 133, 297, 323 Llewelyn, S.R. 141 Lock, Walter 350 Lohfink, Gerhard 341, 342, 350 Longenecker, Bruce 39, 40, 41, 42, 45 Loraux, Nicole 241 Lucarelli, Ute 24 Luckmann, Thomas 26, 92

463 Luz, Ulrich 43, 44, 76, 281, 340, 365 Lyons, Deborah 130 M MacDonald, Dennis 167, 264, 345 MacDonald, Margaret 17, 18, 26, 35, 66, 67, 69, 97, 107, 123, 140, 157, 167, 175, 220, 264, 344, 356, 367 MacMullen, Ramsay 304, 311, 328, 332 Madigan, Kevin 350, 351 Malherbe, Abraham xiv, xv, xvi, xxi, 13, 34, 38, 105, 108, 114, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 191, 224, 266, 370, 393 Malina, Bruce J. xiv, 97, 98, 100, 106, 120, 163 Mantzoulinou-Richards, Ersie 105 Mare, W. Harold 343 Markschies, Christoph 166, 173, 175 Marrou, Henri-Irénée 220, 221 Marshall, Anthony J. 215 Marshall, I. Howard xii, 2, 7, 12, 13, 16, 23, 60, 61, 107, 108, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 124, 140, 147, 150, 152, 153, 167, 174, 177, 179, 181, 182, 186, 218, 226, 229, 232, 247, 248, 257, 260, 261, 262, 264, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 350, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 364, 365 Marshall, John 4, 5, 8, 19, 146 Marsman, Hennie 385 Martin, Dale 39, 44, 123 Maurizio, Lisa 334, 335 McClure, Laura 87, 88, 89, 137, 188, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 223, 254, 265, 293, 333 McCready, Wayne 47, 52 McEvilley, Thomas 155 McGinn, Sheila 168, 169 McKechnie, Paul 180

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

464 Meade, David 3 Meeks, Wayne 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 50, 54 Meggitt, Justin 39, 40, 41, 44, 123 Meiser, Martin 249, 251, 280, 281, 282, 284 Merkel, Helmut 3 Merklein, Helmut 161, 234, 238, 239, 283, 340, 341 Merkt, Andreas 9 Merz, Annette xii, xiv, 2, 4, 10, 11, 111, 117, 130, 131, 140, 141, 142, 145, 163, 167, 170, 174, 179, 180, 182, 218, 226, 229, 238, 240, 246, 247, 248, 257, 260, 261, 263, 264, 339, 341, 343, 344, 345, 347, 349, 352, 355, 364, 385 Methuen, Charlotte 357 Metzger, Bruce 4, 5 Michel, Otto 74, 75, 78 Middendorp, Theophil 249, 253 Millard, Allan 234 Miller, Edward 343 Miller, Maxwell 234 Milnor, Kristina 271 Mitchell, Margaret 64, 76, 80 Momigliano, Arnaldo 333 Mommsen, Theodor 41, 46 Monoson, Sara 139, 209 Montague, George 2, 7, 165, 166, 167, 248, 339, 340, 350 Moo, Douglas 179, 226, 230, 232 Mossé, Claude 296 Mossman, Judith 207 Mott, Stephen Charles 13 Motto, Anna Lydia 154 Mounce, William 2, 9, 179, 181, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 241, 342, 364, 365 Mueller, Hans-Friederich 24, 29, 333 Müller-Reineke, Hendrik 301 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 9, 238, 343

N Nagle, Brendan 77, 80 Nauta, Ruurd 318 Neyrey, Jerome xiv, 85, 97, 98, 120, 148, 149, 150, 236, 240, 313 Niccum, Curt 343 Nicklas, Tobias 56, 64, 164, 172, 177, 178, 281 Nilsson, Martin 368 Nimis, Stephen 241 Nisbet, R.G.M. 318 Nollé, Johannes 304, 308, 309, 310, 311 Noort, Ed 233, 234 Nussbaum, Martha C. 211 O, Ø O’Brien, Joan 254, 256 Obbink, Dirk 78, 80 Oberlinner, Lorenz xiv, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 21, 23, 25, 44, 55, 60, 61, 64, 68, 74, 75, 76, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 161, 163, 165, 167, 179, 181, 182, 187, 218, 226, 228, 232, 238, 240, 245, 261, 262, 263, 264, 282, 285, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 359, 361, 365, 366, 398 Oepke, Albrecht 149, 357 Ogden, Daniel 378 Økland, Jorunn 73, 86, 289, 340, 343 Orlin, Eric 323, 336 Ormand, K. 130, 131 Orr, W.F. 340, 343 Osgood, Josiah 381 Osiek, Carolyn 17, 18, 38, 157, 220, 350, 351, 367 Oster, Richard 110, 121, 141, 174, 229, 322, 325, 326 P Panagopoulos, Cécile 104, 157 Panoussi, Vassiliki 90 Parkin, Tim 360

Payne, Philip 164, 179, 229, 231, 238, 343 Penella, Robert 210 Perry, Jonathan 46 Pervo, Richard 11, 60, 147 Pesch, Rudolph 11, 342 Peterson, Erik 48, 49, 71, 72, 73 Philips, F. Carter 253 Pietersen, Lloyd 12 Pilhofer, Peter 235 Pleket, Harry 38, 40, 212, 298, 299, 304, 305, 306, 309, 314, 327 Plummer, Alfred 343 Pohlenz, Max 77, 79, 118 Pokorný, Petr 3, 5 Poland, Franz 46, 47, 49, 54, 57, 148, 330, 333 Pölönen, Janne 367, 375, 376 Pomeroy, Sarah xiii, 80, 92, 95, 129, 132, 134, 136, 198, 199, 203, 219, 221, 222, 223, 267, 273, 276, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 304, 310, 311, 323, 367, 370, 372, 373, 377 Portefaix, Lilian 28, 387 Porter, Stanley 3, 172 Price, Simon 147, 148 Prior, Michael 3 Puskas, Charles B. 6, 7, 10 Q Quaß, Friedemann 113, 304, 305 Quinn, Jerome xiv, 2, 6, 11, 60, 62, 107, 111, 115, 117, 120, 249, 251, 350, 351, 353 R Raaflaub, Kurt 139, 150, 206 Rademaker, Adriaan 13, 62, 89, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 121, 131, 132, 151 Raditsa, Leo Ferrero 271, 272 Raepsaet-Charlier, MarieThérèse 304, 308, 317, 319, 325, 326, 330

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index Ramsby, Teresa 24, 77 Redalié, Yann 175, 177 Rhodes, Peter 75 Ricl, Marijana 114 Rist, John 200, 201, 212, 224, 266, 269 Robert, Louis 78 Robertson, Archibald 343 Robinson, James 169 Robinson, Thomas 169 Roche, P. A. 83, 224, 319 Rogers, Guy 77, 304, 307, 310, 312, 322 Rohrbaugh, Richard 43 Roisman, Hanna 199, 206, 207, 333 Roloff, Jürgen xiii, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 23, 48, 49, 60, 74, 107, 111, 112, 114, 117, 138, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 163, 165, 166, 174, 176, 177, 181, 182, 186, 187, 218, 226, 238, 239, 245, 247, 248, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 282, 283, 285, 343, 344, 347, 350, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 364, 365, 384 Roose, Hanna 118, 161 Rosenberg, Veit 334 Roskam, Geert 104, 119, 122, 127, 152 Rosler, Andrés 197 Rothwell, Kenneth 291, 292, 293, 294 Roy, Jim 302 Runia, David 251 Rüpke, Jörg 28, 31, 51, 52 S Saïd, Suzanne 34, 62, 200 Salkever, Stephen 82, 87, 93, 94, 197, 209 Saller, Richard 43, 47, 51, 53, 55, 84, 87, 113, 297, 313, 315, 316, 317, 367, 372, 375 Sandnes, Karl Olav 73 Saxonhouse, Arlene 93, 94, 294 Scaife, Ross 92 Schaefer, Christoph 6 Schaps, David 322, 372

Scharbert, Josef 234 Scheidel, Walter 38, 40, 41, 42, 297 Schindler, Alfred 168 Schlarb, Egbert 167, 173, 176, 177, 282 Schlier, Heinrich 146, 341, 342 Schmidt, K.L. 46, 48 Schmitt Pantel, Pauline 156 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 76 Schneider, Gerhard 11, 55 Schneider, Johannes 109, 112 Schnelle, Udo 3, 5, 48 Schöllgen, Georg 39, 55, 113, 114, 115 Schrage, Wolfgang 10, 48, 238, 246, 340, 343 Schreiner, Thomas R. 179 Schröter, Jens 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 Schüle, Andreas 234 Schultz, Celia 30, 31, 32, 292, 322, 323, 331, 332, 333, 358 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 17, 60, 164, 170, 172, 186, 247, 343, 344 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger 152 Scott, Ernest 182 Scott, James 1, 16, 17, 18, 20 Scramuzza, Vincent 148 Sebesta, Judith Lynn 128 Seebass, Horst 233, 234 Senft, Christophe 343 Settipani, Christian 325 Sève, Michel 329 Severy(-Hoven), Beth 24, 77, 96, 203, 272, 273 Shaw, Michael 87, 266, 289, 291 Shepard Kraemer, Ross 35 Short, John 343 Sirks, A.J. Boudewijn 30, 41, 46, 51 Ska, Jean-Louis 239 Smith, Craig 10 Sommerstein, Alan 292, 293

465 Sordi, Marta 50 Sosin, Joshua D. 323 Späth, Thomas 203, 218, 220, 272, 317 Speyer, Wolfgang 3, 5, 7 Spicq, Céslas xiv, 2, 13, 15, 33, 44, 54, 75, 76, 107, 111, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 141, 142, 144, 147, 149, 152, 153, 167, 168, 169, 179, 181, 192, 196, 211, 227, 231, 235, 237, 249, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 348, 350, 353, 355, 356, 363, 364, 367, 377, 381 Stählin, Gustav 356 Standhartinger, Angela 2, 13, 120, 147, 319 Staples, Ariadne 30, 320, 331, 333 Stauffer, Devin 209 Stegemann , Wolfgang 39 Stegemann, Ekkehard 39 Stehle, Eva 275 Stiefel, Jennifer 350, 351, 352 Stowers, Stanley 53 Strootman, Rolf 121 Sumney, Jerry 17, 25, 66, 165, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 181 Swain, Simon xiii, 82 T Taaffe, Lauren 87, 291, 292, 293 Takacs, Sarolta 31 Taliaferro Boatwright, Mary 308 Temin, Peter 40 Theissen, Gerd 37, 38, 39, 42, 47, 55 Thiessen, Werner 2, 10, 11, 43, 60, 112, 167, 168, 169, 174, 179, 350 Thompson, John 19, 20, 21, 26, 92, 162 Thraede, Klaus 3, 14, 23, 235, 259, 339, 343, 387 Thrall, Margaret 247 Tiwald, Markus 280, 282, 339, 386

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

466 Towner, Philip 2, 6, 7, 16, 97, 107, 179, 181, 182, 218, 226, 229, 232, 238, 251, 260, 339, 343, 344, 350, 353, 355, 363, 364, 365 Trebilco, Paul xv, 2, 8, 15, 48, 49, 60, 61, 148, 149, 168, 284, 304, 305, 308, 312, 313, 325, 327, 353, 363, 385 Treggiari, Susan 123, 216, 220, 222, 271, 272, 297, 298, 299, 317, 333, 358, 359, 367, 376, 377, 380 Trible, Phyllis 233, 234 Trilling, Wolfgang 185 Trummer, Peter 6, 112, 177, 238, 245, 261, 263, 264, 353 Tsouna, Voula 298 Tsouyopoulos, Nelly 292 Tsuji, Manabu 5, 6 Turpin, José 29 Tyrrell, W. Blake 134 V Vaage, Leif146, 387 Valleskey, Stephen229 van Bremen, Riet 77, 106, 300, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 331, 367 Van Den Bergh, Rena 221 van der Horst, Pieter Willem 225 Van Neste, Ray 138 van Nijf, Onno M. 46, 47, 51, 298, 317 van Raalte, Marlein 82, 122 van Ruiten, Jacques 239, 249 Vélissaropoulos, Julie 78 Vénencie, Jacques 122, 306 Verboven, Koenraad 41, 42, 51 Verheyden, Joseph 219, 340 Vernant, Jean-Pierre 206, 253, 255 Verner, David xiv, 37, 43, 44, 45, 60, 61, 67, 111,

112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 124, 140, 142, 274, 302, 303, 353, 356, 357, 360, 363, 365, 389 Vervenne, Marc 234 Veyne, Paul 77, 113, 114, 121, 156, 310, 313, 314 Vittinghoff, Friedrich 38, 40, 41, 62, 77, 79, 113, 141, 298 Viviano, Benedict 146 von Lips, Hermann 5, 8, 10, 23, 76, 173, 190, 347, 348 von Rad, Gerhard 234, 243, 244 W Wacker, William 2, 11, 60, 62, 107, 111, 115, 117, 249, 251, 350, 351, 353 Wagener, Ulrike xii, 60, 61, 67, 76, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 161, 162, 163, 169, 176, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186, 206, 226, 230, 247, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 283, 343, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 364, 365, 366, 388 Wagner, Jochen 60, 64, 350, 351 Wagner-Hasel, Beate 297, 312 Waithe, Mary Ellen 212 Walcot, Peter 199, 203, 357 Walker, William 343 Walker-Ramisch, Sandra 50, 51, 53, 330 Walsh, Brian 17 Walther, J.A. 340, 343 Waltzing, Jean-Pierre 30, 46, 51, 54, 55, 57, 113, 141, 308, 309, 330 Ward, Roy Bowen 332 Wassermann, Felix 367 Watson, Francis 343 Watson, Patricia 376 Weber, Max 12 Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich 15, 48, 49, 71, 72, 73, 146, 176 Weidinger, Karl 14, 357

Weiser, Alfons 2, 8, 10, 11, 146, 151, 179, 189, 342, 347, 348, 349 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 172 Weiß, Johannes 343 Wender, Dorothea 294 Wenham, Gordon 234 Wénin, André 255 West, Martin 78 Westermann, Claus 234, 235, 244, 255 White, L. Michael 325, 326, 380, 381 Wilckens, Ulrich 146, 341 Wild, Robert A. 55, 350 Wiles, David 378 Willetts, Ronald F. 295, 372 Williams, Craig A. 366 Wilshire, Leland 229 Wilson, Robert 168, 264 Wilson, Stephen 11, 25, 47, 51, 120, 147 Winter, Bruce 179, 218,220, 229, 260, 271, 364, 387 Witetschek, Stephan 8, 11, 305, 325, 328 Witherington, Ben xiv, 2, 11, 75, 112, 167, 264, 328, 343, 350, 364, 392 Wöhrle, G. 132 Wolff, Christian 340, 344 Wolff, Hans Walter 234 Wolter, Michael 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 165, 171, 176, 235, 236, 237, 239, 264 Woodhull, Margaret L. 318 Wright, Benjamin G. 241 Y Yarbro Collins, Adela 165 Young, Frances 2, 148, 165, 167, 384 Younger, John 367 Z Zanker, Paul 42 Zeisel, William xvii, 273, 357, 358 Zeitlin, Froma 87, 88, 90, 132, 199, 208 Ziehen, Ludwig 333

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

467

NAMES A Aba of Histria 309 Achilles 88, 183, 274 Adam 227, 233, 234, 235, 237, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 256 Aebutius Liberalis 144 Aegisthus 102 Aelia Ammia 105, 328 Aelius Marcianus Priscus, Titus 110 Aemilius Pardalas 317 Agamemnon 131 Agis 296, 372, 373 Aglaos of Kos 122 Agreophon of Perdeikia 123, 314 Agricola 83, 104, 277 Agrippina Maior 216, 319, 327 Agrippina Minor 203, 315, 316, 332 Ajax 102, 130, 131 Alexander (Christian) 25 Alexander Jannaeus 303 Alexander the Great 119, 122, 203, 321 Alkiphron 327 Alleia Decimilla 332, 358 Alleius Nigidius Maius 332 Ammias 331, 386 Amymone 137 Andromache 88, 89, 129, 188 Andronicus 280, 281, 282, 341 Antigone 82, 88, 130, 132, 134, 199, 200, 207, 264, 275 Antonia Flaviane 330 Antoninus Pius 3, 376 Aphrodite 253, 305, 327 Apollo 199, 294, 324, 335, 342, 349 Apollo (Christian) 342 Apollonis (queen) 302, 303 Apollonis of Kyzikos 105 Apphia (Christian) 57 Apphia (high priestess) 327 Aquila 57, 281, 342, 349

Archippe of Kyme 304, 313 Aretaphila of Cyrene 205 Areus 134 Aristarchus 282, 342 Aristodama of Smyrna 192, 211 Artemis 104, 110, 141, 148, 149, 228, 305, 307, 308, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329 Asclepius 148, 324 Aspasia 209, 210, 211, 216 Atalanta of Termessos 308, 314 Athena 131, 148, 208, 241, 305, 323, 329 Augustus 3, 29, 77, 80, 96, 147, 148, 203, 204, 271, 272, 273, 302, 315, 316, 318, 319, 327, 332, 378 Aulus Gellius 128, 376 Auphria 335 Aurelia (priestess of Artemis) 326 Aurelia Apphia 329 Aurelia Claudia Apollonia 329 Aurelia Philematium 137 Aurelius Hierocleus Apolinarius, M. 326 B Bacchon 200 Barea Soranus 382 Bona Dea 323, 331, 333 C Caecilia Attica 190 Caecilius Epirota, Q. 190 Caelia, wife of Q. Mucius Scaevola 110 Callistus 113 Calpurnia 225 Calpurnia Hispulla 112, 225 Campia Severina 317 Caninia Gargonilla 326 Carfania 215 Carmenta 323 Ceres 331, 332, 358 Claudia (Christian) 283 Claudia (priestess of Artemis) 326 Claudia Ammion 110, 327

Claudia Apphia Chaeremonis 322 Claudia Arescousa 275 Claudia Artemisia 329 Claudia Caninia Severa 110, 326 Claudia Crateia Veriane 325, 326, 328 Claudia Metrodora 307, 313 Claudia Paula 330 Claudia Procla 325 Claudia Trophime 305, 322 Claudius 146, 148, 203, 315, 316, 326, 328, 330 Claudius Marcellus, C. 317 Claudius Apollonius Beronikianus, Ti. 330 Claudius Severus, Ti. 326 Clement 281, 340 Cleodorus 133 Clodia Metelli 191 Clodius Pulcher, P. 191 Clytemnestra 88, 102, 274 Cocceia Popiliane 306 Coriolanus 104, 205, 213, 214, 273, 380 Cornelia Fortunata 105 Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi 216, 221, 273, 276, 318, 358 Cornelia (wife of Pompey) 191 Cosconia Myrton 306 Creon 82, 132, 134, 152, 200, 207, 264 Critobulos 132 D Deborah 347 Demas 25, 282, 283, 342 Demeter 322, 325, 333 Demetrios of Phaleron 377, 378 Despoina 368 Diogeneia 330 Dion (episkopos) 54 Dionysios (founder of association) 53 Dionysios Amenios 156 Dionysus (god) 31, 32, 52, 66 Diotima 211, 216

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

468 Domitia Longina 316 Domitia Lucilla 315, 316 Domitianus 110, 316 Dynamis (queen of Bosphorus) 302 E Enkidu 254, 255 Epaphroditus 281, 342 Epie 305 Epimetheus 254, 255 Epiphania 112 Eragatiane Menodora 275 Eragatianos Menodoros 275 Eteocles 88, 131, 132, 199, 207, 274 Euboedas 134 Eubule 277 Eubulus 283 Eumachia 332 Eumetis 133 Eunice 346, 347, 361, 391 Euodia 281, 326, 340 Euridike (Neopythagorean) 135, 259 Eurydice (bride of Polyanus) 192, 221 Eurydice (mother of Haemon) 88 Eve 227, 228, 233, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 262 F Flaccus 29 Flavia Ammion 306, 326, 327 Flavia Papiana 328 Flavius Damianus 328 Flavius Hermocrates 327 Fortuna Muliebris 323, 358 Fronto 66, 325 Fulvia 202, 203, 273, 382, 383 G Gaius (Christian) 281 Gaudentia 385 Gavius Capito, Publius 110, 327 Gilgamesh 254, 255 Gyges 128 H Hadrian 3, 274, 315, 316, 326, 333

Hanna 354 Helvia 193, 301, 358, 371 Helvidia Paula 307 Hera 330 Hermes 54 Hermione 88, 89, 129, 188, 208, 212 Hermogenes 25 Hestia 81, 305, 322, 329 Hipparchia 191, 212, 224, 266 Hippolytus 113 Hipponicus 120, 125 Holconia 332 Hortensia 191, 215, 216, 221, 380 Hortensius Hortalus, Q. 215, 221, 380 Hygeia 52 Hymenaeus 25 Hypatia 212, 213, 216 I Iphigenia 88, 274 Isis 35, 50, 66, 174, 236, 329, 330, 331, 386 Ismene 134, 199, 200 Ismenodora 200, 201 Isomachus 91, 92, 118, 131, 132, 135, 198, 220, 222, 267 Istacidia 332 J Judith 354 Julia Crispina 300 Julia Damiana Polla 326 Julia Domna 210, 316 Julia Juliana 306 Julia Menogenis 306 Julia Paula 322, 327 Julia Polla 325, 326 Julia Severa 327 Julia Tyche 325 Juliane (high priestess of Asia) 327 Julius Aquila, Marcus 328 Julius Bassus 274 Julius Fronto, C. 325 Julius Nabo, C. 325 Junia (Christian) 281, 282, 341 Junia Theodora 122, 306, 314, 341 Juno 321, 332, 333

K Kallisto 258 Kandaules 128 Kleanax 123 Kleareta 105, 259, 369 Knemon 90 Kore 322, 325, 329 L Laelia 191, 215, 216, 277 Laelius, Gaius (the elder) 358 Laelius, Gaius (the younger, orator) 216 Lassia 332 Leonidas 104, 119 Leontium 212 Linus 283 Livia 203, 307, 311, 315, 319, 332 Lois 49, 53, 113, 263, 346, 347, 361, 391 Lucretius Vespillo, Q. 381 Luke 342 Lycurgus 129, 294, 334 Lysistrata 90, 132, 208, 293 M Maesia of Sentinum 215 Magna Mater 30, 51, 52, 54, 309, 331 Magnilla 212 Mamia 332 Marc Antony 202, 203, 382 Marcus Aurelius 109, 315, 316 Maria (Jewish hierisa) 385 Maria (Christian) 281 Marin 385 Mark 283, 342 Matidia 319 Megadorus 376, 378 Melissa (wife of Periander) 133 Melleipos 54 Menecles 275 Menelaus 131 Meniskos 54 Menodora of Sillyon 304, 307, 323 Metrobius Verianus, Claudius 326 Mindia Potentilla 326 Montanus 113

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index Moschion of Priene 192, 314 Moses 149, 235, 237 Murdia 277, 300, 301 N Natalius 113 Neoptolemus 188 Nikostrate 135, 259, 269 Numa 129, 151, 183 Nympha 57 O Octavia 273, 316 Octavian (see also Augustus) 190, 382 Onesiphoros 25, 57, 124, 283 Opramoas of Rhodiapolis 221, 308 Otacilia Polla 274 P Pandora 132, 208, 249, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 Paula Aratiane 326 Peleus 129, 188, 223 Pentheus 89 Pericles 34, 122, 134, 139, 183, 209, 210, 265 Persis 281, 341 Pheidias 133, 255 Philemon (Christian) 57 Philopoemen 82 Phoebe 57, 281, 306, 341, 342, 350, 352 Phygelus 25 Plancia Aurelia Magniana Motoxaris 308, 309 Plancia Magna 308, 329 Plancius Magnianus Xenon, P. 308, 309 Plotina 224, 301, 316, 319 Plotina (in Apuleius) 382 Polemo of Pontus 302 Pollianus 82, 224 Polydamas of Pharsalus 121 Polyneices 200, 274 Polythrous 221 Pompeia Agrippinilla 50, 331 Popilius Carus Pedo, Gaius 110, 325 Poppea Sabina 316

Praxagora 90, 208, 223, 291, 292, 293 Prisca 57, 281, 283, 341, 342, 346, 349, 361, 391 Prometheus 253, 255 Protagoras 29, 102 Pudens 283 S Sabina (wife of Hadrian) 315 Salome (Shelamzion) Alexandra 303 Salvia Marcellina 331 Šamhat 254, 255 Sarapis 50, 52, 330 Saturninus 224 Sempronia 191, 192 Senbreidase 300 Sergia Paullina 50 Sergius Paulus 50 Servilia 203, 382 Solon 151, 173, 183, 333, 377 Sosinike 50, 330 Sosipatra 329 Soter 148 Stephanas 57 Stratonice (queen) 302, 303 Suetonius Paulinus 204 Sulpicia 192, 382 Synesius 213 Syntyche 281, 341 T Tata (priestess of Hera) 330 Tate 105 Tatianus 141 Tecmessa 130, 131, 208 Terentia 216, 298, 317, 332, 367, 382 Terentia Paramone 332 Terti 192 Theano 128, 224 Thecla 345, 346 Themistoclea 209, 216, 387 Theodorus of Cyrene (the atheist) 29, 212 Theos Hypsistos 52 Tiberius (emperor) 29, 31, 203, 276, 315, 319, 330, 333, 367 Tigranes 303 Timothy 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 23, 25, 33, 99, 107, 111,116,

469 120, 123, 124, 125, 160, 162, 164, 173, 174, 181, 189, 240, 261, 262, 281, 282, 283, 285, 342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 357, 361 Timoxena 259 Titus 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 33, 107, 120, 146, 160, 162, 176, 185, 281, 283, 356 Trajan 30, 54, 83, 224, 271, 301, 316, 319, 325 Tryphaena (Christian) 281, 341 Tryphaena (queen) 344 Tryphosa (Christian) 281, 341 Tryphosa (priestess of Artemis) 307 Tullia (daughter of Cicero) 191, 216 Tullia (prytanis) 123 Turia 381, 382, 383 U Ulpia Democrateia 326 Ulpia Euodia Moudiane 326 Urbanus 281 V Valeria (sister or daughter of Publicola) 214 Vedia Marcia 327 Vedia Phaedrina 328 Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus, M. Cl. P. 315, 328 Verginia 221 Vespasian 148, 203, 308 Vestals 31, 135, 272, 317, 321, 323, 331, 333, 336 Veturia 205, 214 Veturius Callistratus, Q. 317 Victor 113 Vipsania Olympias 307, 322 Vipsanius Agrippa, Marcus 190 Z Zaleuchos of Locris 377 Zeno (Stoic) 266 Zeus 62, 70, 77, 78, 79, 148, 253, 254, 295, 305, 325, 335

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

470

Index PLACES

A Achaia 8 Aezani 148 Alexandria 122, 212 Ambrakia 54 Amorium 328 Amyzon 148 Andania 368 Antioch (Pisidia) 10 Antioch (Syria) 280 Antium 113 Aphrodisias 148, 322, 327, 330 Apollonia (Mysia) 212 Archelaïs 354 Argos 335, 357 Aspendus 49 Athens 8, 29, 51, 56, 78, 206, 213, 219, 220, 223, 235, 241, 254, 292, 293, 296, 299, 309, 316, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 333, 372 B Bendis 330 Beroea 8 Beth She‘arim 385 C Caesarea (Mauritania) 212, 274 Caesarea Maritima 149 Cenchreae 341, 350 Chios 307 Corinth 8, 64, 170, 306, 340, 341 Crete 7, 8, 295, 372, 385 Cyprus 50, 329 Cyrene 205, 213 D Delos 49, 50, 323 Delphi 294, 321, 324, 334, 335, 386 Didyma 304, 335 Dionysopolis 156 Dodona 335 E Epano Liosia 51 Ephesus, Ephesian 7, 8, 11, 15, 97, 110, 123, 141, 169, 179, 229, 283, 304, 305, 307, 315, 322,

324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 344, 360, 364, 392 G Gortyn 295, 372, 373 H Halicarnassus 51, 148 Heraclea (Ionia) 324 Herakleia Salbake 105, 148, 306 Herculaneum 275 Hierapolis (Phrygia) 303 Histria 309 I Ialysos 54 Iasos 329 Iconium 10, 345 J Julia Gordos (Lydia) 105 K Kastollos 49 Klaros 306 Kolophon 306 Kyme 123, 304 Kyzikos 54, 105, 113, 304, 329 L Lamia 211 Lamos 51 Lanuvium 51, 55, 323 Latium 52, 380 Leontopolis 385 Lindos 54 Lycia, Lycian 52, 122, 220, 275, 300, 306, 308 Lycosura 368 Lystra 10 M Macedonia 8 Magnesia on the Meander 49, 327 Massalia 327 Metropolis (Lydia) 54 Milan 332 Miletus 10, 11, 113, 209, 306, 329 Mylasa 51, 110 Myra 306 N Naples 332 O Opus (Locris) 50, 330

Ostia 323 Othos 105 Oxyrhynchus 382 P Patara 122, 275, 306, 335 Pautalia 54 Pergamon 220, 298, 303, 306, 325, 327, 329 Perge 275, 308, 329 Philadelphia 49, 52, 53 Philippi 176 Phocaea 306 Piraeus 114, 330 Piribeyli, Phrygia 105 Pompeii 332 Priene 156, 304, 305, 314, 329 R Reate 332 Regium Julium 51 Rhodos 54 Rome xiii, xx, 8, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 77, 90, 96, 97, 137, 139, 205, 206, 213, 214, 219, 221, 271, 273, 277, 299, 300, 309, 310, 311, 318, 321, 322, 325, 329, 331, 332, 358, 360, 367, 372, 378, 380, 385, 388, 389, 390, 415 S Samos 49 Sillyon 304, 307, 323 Sinope 51, 330 Smyrna 220, 306, 333 T Tanais 52 Tarentum 332 Telmessos 122, 306 Teos 220, 221 Termessos (Pisidia) 308 Thera 54 Thessalonica 8 Thyatira 306, 331, 387 Thyrrheum 55 Tlos 52, 298 Tomis 105, 112 Troizen 54 Tusculum 50, 331 X Xanthus 220, 275, 300

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

471

SUBJECTS A a`gnei,a 123, 258, 314 a`gnh, 105, 314 aivdw,j (aidǀs) 13, 60, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 108, 125, 127, 128, 195, 274, 370 avne,gklhtoj 13, 98, 120, 356 avnele,nktwj 106 avnepi,lhmptoj 13, 98, 120, 356 avpata,w 244, 245, 247 (see also evxapata,w) avrgo,j 181, 182, 183, 186, 355 auvqe,nthj 228, 229, 230 auvqente,w 228, 229, 230 auvta,rkeia 151, 153, 155, 156 avfila,rguroj 13, 103, 120 Acts of Paul and Thecla 11, 18, 167, 175, 178, 181, 219, 339, 344 agonothete 123, 304, 306, 307, 309, 314, 327, 328 agoranomos 326 archiatroi 298 archiereia 110, 304, 306, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 archiereus 326, 327, 329, 330 archisynagogos 54 archisynagǀgissa 385 B basileia 307 benefactor (see also euergetism) xx, 13, 54, 57, 77, 105, 109, 110, 112, 116, 122, 126, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 156, 157, 267, 289, 290, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 313, 314, 315, 316, 319, 323, 325, 327, 328, 336, 337, 355, 362, 364, 366, 385, 390, 391, 395, 397 boularchos 326 C ch,ra 111, 355, 356, 357

christliche Bürgerlichkeit 13, 15, 18, 138 collegium (association) 28, 46, 50, 51, 55, 78, 315, 317, 318, 323, 331, 336 aleiphomenoi 49 association from Philadelphia (to Zeus Eumenes and Hestia) 51, 53 collegia funeraticia 46 collegia tenuiorum 50 collegium Aesculapi et Hygiae 55, 331 cultores Dianae et Antinoi 51, 55 dendrophori 51 eranos 51, 56 Herakleisthai 49 Iobacchoi 55, 56 orgeǀnes 330 technitai 49 thiasos 50, 51, 52, 54 Cynics 12, 34, 152, 154, 155, 157, 190, 191, 266, 268, 295 D didaskali,a 9, 107, 108, 163, 173, 185, 190, 202, 283 dida,skaloj 9, 224 dikaiosu,nh 11, 79, 80, 92, 93, 98, 99, 102, 103, 119, 120, 123, 139 dekaprǀtos 307 demiourgia, demiourgos 304, 308, 309 diakonos 44, 45, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 74, 83, 107, 114, 118, 120, 123, 281, 285, 338, 339, 341, 346, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 361, 391, 397 dokimasia 56, 83 domiseda 96, 137 domus 53, 78, 83, 316 E evgkra,teia 92, 101, 102, 104, 120 e`no.j avndro.j gunh, 356, 357, 359, 360

evpi,gnwsij avlhqei,aj 150, 165, 173, 190 euvergesi,a 109, 141, 142, 144 euvse,beia 2, 11, 13, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 147, 153, 189, 275, 302, 303, 329 evpieikh,j 13, 123, 314 evxapata,w 245, 246, 248 economy scale 42 ekklƝsia xviii, xix, xx, xxi, 1, 2, 21, 33, 39, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 84, 85, 86, 115, 116, 133, 138, 140, 158, 159, 161, 170, 195, 226, 227, 238, 279, 288, 289, 292, 337, 342, 353, 361, 362, 388, 394, 395 Eleusinian mysteries 51 Epicureans, Epicureanism 12, 119, 127, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 191, 200, 212, 316 episkopos 11, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 69, 74, 108, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 161, 163, 218, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 300, 350, 351, 352, 356 eponymous office 304, 305, 306, 308 euergetism 76, 77, 113, 121, 156, 157, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 318, 321, 322, 332, 336, 362, 390 F filandri,a 60, 105, 258, 274, 275, 314, 329 fi,landroj, filandrota,th 105, 108, 212, 275, 329, 330 filarguri,a 152, 153, 157

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index

472 filo,teknoj 108, 263, 275, 330 filotekni,a 60, 105, 258, 274, 275 filo,xenoj( filoxeni,a 121, 122, 356 flu,aroj 18, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 355 fro,nhsij 94, 95, 105, 197, 202 familia 40, 77, 83, 388 flamen 331, 332 flamen Dialis 332, 332 flamen provinciae 331 flaminica 331, 332 flaminica Dialis 332, 357 G gamei/n 108, 174, 222, 263, 268, 355, 366 Gnosis 68, 147, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 186, 228, 263, 264, 287, 344, 361, 396 grammateus 54, 56, 304, 322 grammatica 212, 335 gymnasiarch 54, 105, 113, 123, 305, 309, 314, 325, 327, 329 gynaikonomos 369, 377, 378 H h`su,cioj 147, 151 h`suci,a (hesychia) 13, 102, 105, 108, 119, 127, 135, 151, 196, 205, 226, 231 hidden transcripts 16, 18, 66 hierisa 385 high priest 327 Himmelsstadt 71, 73 hipparchia 304 homonoia 64, 76 honestiores 40, 41 household of God xix, xxi, 48, 52, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 75, 76, 84, 97, 137, 138, 140, 158, 159, 394 (see also oikos Theou) humiliores 40, 41 hymnodos 333

I iatroi 298 isegoria 206, 279 ius trium liberorum 271, 298, 311 K kalokagaqi,a 105, 303 kosmio,thj 13, 105, 107, 108, 120, 274, 314 ko,smoj 81, 130, 370 koinon 49, 156 kosmeteira 325, 326 kosmophylax 329 L lale,w 184, 186, 208, 340 Laudatio Turiae 381, 383 Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis 28 Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus 271, 272 Lex Papia Poppaea 271, 272 Life of Adam and Eve 249, 250, 252 M manqa,nw 182, 184, 186, 355 mesi,thj 148, 149 metadi,dwmi 57 mia/j gunaiko.j avnh,r 123, 229, 356, 357 Megabyzos 325 mƝtƝr synagogƝs 385 middling groups xviii, 41, 42, 45, 362 Mithraism 51, 52, 149 mystagogos 333 N Neopythagorean, Neopythagoreanism 12, 80, 81, 94, 101, 105, 128, 135, 155, 198, 212, 225, 258, 259, 266, 269, 270, 278, 369, 370, 374 O oi=koj Qeou/ 48, 50, 60, 61, 63, 67, 70, 74, 161 (see also household of God, oikos of God) oivkodesposu,nh 106

oivkodespotei/n 108, 263, 355 oivkodomh, 64, 75 oivkono,moj Qeou/ 69 oivkourgo,j 108, 258 oikos viii, xii, xvi, xviii, xix, xxi, 2, 14, 21, 37, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 102, 116, 119, 134, 135, 139, 140, 158, 159, 161, 169, 179, 208, 222, 223, 227, 252, 257, 258, 259, 265, 279, 291, 292, 293, 294, 310, 330, 337, 338, 355, 374, 387, 388, 389, 394, 395 oikos of God 74, 158 oikos of the Theoi Megaloi 78 oikos of Zeus 79 Olympian gods 54, 78 Oppian Law 96, 202, 377, 378 P peri,ergoj 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 355 pi,stij 11, 23, 139, 173, 346, 348, 356 pisto,j 11, 23, 163, 347, 355 prw/toj 236, 237, 239, 240, 374 parrhƝsia 139, 206, 279 pater familias 40, 77, 83, 84 Pater Patriae 77 patria potestas 77, 387 polis xii, xvi, xviii, xix, xxi, 2, 13, 15, 21, 27, 29, 33, 37, 46, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 102, 103, 115, 116, 126, 132, 134, 145, 158,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609

Index 159, 161, 184, 195, 197, 199, 206, 207, 208, 227, 265, 266, 268, 279, 291, 292, 293, 294, 308, 310, 314, 323, 330, 337, 338, 374, 389, 390, 394, 395 polis of Zeus 79 poverty scale 39, 41, 42 presbytera 385 presbyteros 11, 53, 55, 56, 60, 69, 108, 114, 115, 120, 121, 282, 283, 285, 286 priestesses xx, 32, 229, 289, 296, 321, 324, 329, 336 age limit 359 as dedicators 322 attributions 333 high priestesses105, 311, 322, 325, 327, 328, 330 inspired speech 334 of Agrippina 327 of Aphrodite 307, 327 of Apollo 324 of Arete 322, 330 of Artemis 110, 307, 308, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329 of Artemis Astias 329 of Artemis Pythia 105, 329 of Athena 208, 323, 329 of Ceres 331, 332, 359 of Delphi 209, 386 of Demeter 325, 329, 332 of Earth 357 of Hera 330 of Hestia 329 of Isis 329, 330 of Julia Augusta 332 of Juno Populona 331 of Liber 331 of Magna Mater 309, 331

of Massalia 327 of Rome 325 of the imperial cult 308, 328, 331, 332 of Tyche 309 of Venus 316, 331 of Zeus Euboulos 305 of associations 54, 330, 331, 332, 390 public 332, 391 proeranestria 51 prophetesses 334, 335 prophetic speech 160, 288, 335, 337, 390 prostatis 57, 281, 341, 391 prytanis 54, 110, 123, 305, 306, 307, 308, 314, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329 pseudepigraphy 3, 4, 5, 11, 259, 391 public transcript 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 59 Pythia 324, 334, 335, 336 S semno,thj 13, 105, 107, 108, 120, 302, 329, 370 semnw/j 105, 325 siga,w 88, 89, 133, 207 sigh, 88, 89, 130 sunei,dhsij 23, 346, 347 sw,fron 89, 103, 105, 106, 108, 123, 127, 129, 151, 212, 224, 259, 267, 314, 329, 370 swfrosu,nh 11, 13, 60, 80, 89, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 119, 120, 121, 123, 127, 129, 131, 132, 139, 195, 258, 259, 261, 274, 275, 302, 314, 329, 370 swth,r 148, 149 swthri,a 109, 148, 260, 262 sacerdos publica 332

473 Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus 28, 31, 32 Sibyl 335, 336 Sibylline books 336 stephanephoria 304, 305, 306, 307 stephanephoros 105, 123, 304, 305, 306, 307, 314, 326, 327, 330 Stoic, Stoicism 12, 14, 62, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 95, 109, 118, 142, 143, 151, 154, 155, 157, 192, 200, 224, 233, 251, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 278, 290, 295, 316, 371, 375, 390 strategos 304, 326 summa honoraria 55, 113, 114 sympoliteia 75 synagogƝ 48, 49 synodos 49, 52 T teknogonei/n 108, 263, 355 teknogoni,a 260, 261, 262 teknotrofei/n 262, 263 timh, 55, 98, 99, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 135 tamias 54, 56 tenuiores 41, 51 theologos, theologia 333, 390 U u`pota,ssw 146, 227 u`potagh, 196, 227, 258 univira xvii, 273, 357, 358, 359 V vilica 299, 367 Voconian Law 272, 377

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525593608 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647593609