God The Father/God The Mother

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir and all,

 

Words absolutely fail me also at what has been discovered in the 1970's and

whose meaning has only been unlocked around the year 2000:

 

" Lost for 1,600 years, the Gospel of Judas was discovered in Egypt in the 1970s.

Nearly thirty years later, when it reached scholars who could unlock its

meaning, it was clear this was a major discovery. "

 

/message/9919

 

So, Jagbir, it was really around the same time - 2000, when you also launched

http://www.adishakti.org/ that scholars were also first unlocking the meaning of

this " major discovery " that Christians and other have not seen for 1,600 years!

The synchronicity is interesting and the Divine Feminine's timing was right on

time for the new millennium!

 

As you say, the newly discovered (but ancient material) completely supports the

Comforter and Saviour. Moreover, the Saviour is shown in his own true light

rather than in the lesser light of the church fathers who tried to claim Jesus

Christ as their own exclusive property. (Maybe some Sahaja Yogis are trying to

claim Shri Mataji as their own exclusive property too?) With this ancient

material the exclusive claim by Christians to 'own Jesus' is somewhat shattered

and people are starting to realise that it is only those who have the 'Christ

Spirit' awakened in them that can in any way say that they 'own Christ'. (With

Shri Mataji also isn't it only those who have have discovered the Self Within

and become their own gurus, who in any manner of speaking can truly say that

they 'own Shri Mataji'?)

 

My consciousness has also changed since i have read this material. In reality

even though most rank and file Christians may not know this yet, or try and turn

a blind eye to it, this material transforms the Christian worldview to the

worldview that we have as gnostics. That is so comforting and empowering! i

never expected a 1600-year-old-gnostic-truth to surface and do that - but it

has! But Christians will have to be brought up to the present, to the knowledge

of the Divine Feminine, that had been suppressed by their church fathers for so

long:

 

" Yet all the sources cited so far – secret gospels, revelations, mystical

teachings – are among those not included in the select list that constitutes the

New Testament collection. Every one of the secret texts which gnostic groups

revered was omitted from the canonical collection, and branded as heretical by

those who called themselves orthodox Christians. By the time the process of

sorting the various writings ended – probably as late as the year 200 –

virtually all the feminine imagery for God had disappeared from orthodox

Christian tradition. "

 

Reading Judas - The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity,

Pg. 78

Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King

Penguin Group – London, England

ISBN 978-0-713-99984-6

 

Once Christians understand and accept the Divine Feminine, the Holy Spirit, they

will also have their Union with the Divine, and come to know their Self truly. i

heard Shri Mataji say to the effect of, 'Once Christians take to Sahaja Yoga,

i.e., their Union with the Divine, there will be no stopping them from spreading

that knowledge to the world'. This 1600-year-old resurfaced knowledge is so

important because it gives undisputed evidence of the gnostic truths that the

Saviour taught. It also makes clear why he had to send the Comforter to remind

us about his gnostic teachings - and more; the Comforter would awaken the Spirit

within human beings in an 'en masse' way.

 

In regards to the appended, the 'Acknowledgements' come first to show gratitude

for all people that have been involved in getting this ancient knowledge known

about again. That is followed by " God The Father/God The Mother " .

 

regards to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

The Gnostic Gospels - Acknowledgements (P.9-10)

 

(P.9) " The writing of this book began several years ago with research into the

relation between politics and religion in the origins of Christianity. The first

four chapters have been published in more technical form in scholarly journals

(specific references precede the footnotes of each chapter).

 

In preparing this volume I have generally chosen to follow the translations

offered in 'The Nag Hammadi Library', edited by James M. Robinson (published by

E.J. Brill of the Netherlands, who also distribute in Great Britain). In certain

cases, however, I have changed the translation for the sake of clarity,

consistency or interpretation (for example, I have translated the Coptic

transliteration of the Greek term ('...'Greek script'...') not as 'perfection',

but as 'fulfillment', which seems to me more accurate; in other cases, where the

Coptic term ('...'Coptic script'...') apparently translates the Greek

('...'Greek script'...'), I have translated it not as 'man' but as 'humanity').

In the case of two texts, I have used different translations (see below)

 

Readers should note that square brackets indicate words reconstructed by

scholars wherever there were breaks in the original text; words enclosed by

ordinary parentheses are those inserted by translators to clarify the text.

 

(P.10) I am especially grateful to those colleagues and friends who have read

and criticized the entire manuscript: Peter Berger, John Gager, Dennis Groh,

Howard Kee, George MacRae, Wayne Meeks and Morton Smith. For other advice and

criticism, specifically of aspects of the introduction, I owe grateful thanks to

Marilyn Harran, Marvin Meyer, Birger Pearson, Gilles Quispel, Richard Ogust and

James M. Robinson. I am grateful, too, to Bentley Layton for permission to use

his translation of the 'Treatise on Resurrection', and to James Brashler for

permission to use his translation of the 'Apocalypse of Peter'.

 

Special thanks are due to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Lita A. Hazen

Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation for their support, which granted me the

time to devote to writing; and to President Jacqueline Mattfeld and Vice

President Charles Olton for approving a year's leave from my responsibilities at

Barnard College. Especially I wish to thank Lydia Bronte and Lita A. Hazen for

their encouragement throughout the whole project.

 

The present version of the book would have been impossible to produce without

the superb editing of Jason Epstein, Vice President and Editorial Director of

Random House; the excellent advice of John Brockman; and the conscientious work

of Connie Budelis in typing and Barbara Willson in copyediting.

 

Finally, I wish to thank my husband for his loving encouragement in the process

of this work. "

 

- by Elaine Pagels

 

Reading Judas - The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity,

Pg. 9-10 - Acknowledgements

Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King

Penguin Group – London, England

ISBN 978-0-713-99984-6

 

 

 

God The Father/God The Mother (Chapter 3)

 

(P.71) Unlike many of his contemporaries among the deities of the

ancient Near East, the God of Israel shared his power with no female

divinity, nor was he the divine Husband or Lover of any. [1] He can

scarcely be characterized in any but masculine epithets: king, lord,

master, judge, and father. [2] Indeed, the absence of feminine

symbolism for God marks Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in striking

contrast to the world's other religious traditions, whether in Egypt,

Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, or in Africa, India, and North America,

which abound in feminine symbolism. Jewish, Christian and Islamic

theologians today are quick to point out that God is not to be

considered in sexual terms at all. [3] Yet the actual language they

use daily in worship and prayer conveys a different message: who, growing up

with Jewish or Christian tradition, has escaped the distinct impression that God

is 'masculine'? And while Catholics revere Mary as the mother of Jesus, they

never identify her as divine in her own right: if she is 'mother of God', she is

not 'God the Mother' on an equal footing with God the Father!

 

Christianity, of course, added the trinitarian terms to the Jewish description

of God. Yet of the three divine 'Persons', two - the Father and the Son - are

described in masculine terms, and the third - the Spirit - suggests the

sexlessness of the Greek neuter term for spirit, 'pneuma'. (P.72) Whoever

investigates the early history of Christianity (the field called 'patristics' -

that is, study of 'the fathers of the church') will be prepared for the passage

that concludes the 'Gospel of Thomas':

 

Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not

worthy of Life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her, in order to make her

male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For

every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' [4]

 

Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that

the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to

participate only when they assimilate themselves to men. Other texts discovered

at Nag Hammadi demonstrate one striking difference between these 'heretical'

sources and orthodox ones: gnostic sources continually use sexual symbolism to

describe God. One might expect that these texts would show the influence of

archaic pagan traditions of the Mother Goddess, but for the most part, their

language is specifically Christian, unmistakably related to a Jewish heritage.

Yet instead of describing a monistic and masculine God, many of these texts

speak of God as a dyad who embraces both masculine and feminine elements.

 

One group of gnostic sources claims to have received a secret tradition from

Jesus through James and through Mary Magdalene. Members of this group prayed to

both the divine Father and Mother: 'From thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother,

the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in

heaven, humanity of the mighty name...’ [5] Other texts indicate that their

authors had wondered to whom a single, masculine God proposed, ‘Let us make man

['adam'] in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26). Since the Genesis

account goes on to say that humanity was created ‘male and female’ (1:27), some

concluded that the God in whose image we are made must also be both masculine

and feminine – both Father and Mother. How do these texts characterize the

divine Mother? I find no simple answer, since the texts themselves are extremely

diverse. Yet we may sketch out three primary characterizations. In the first

place, several gnostic groups describe the divine Mother as part of an original

couple. Valentinus, the teacher and poet, begins with the premise that God is

essentially indescribable. But he suggests that the divine can be imagined as a

dyad; consisting, in one part, of the Ineffable, the Depth, the Primal Father;

and, in the other, of Grace, Silence, the Womb and ‘Mother of the All’. [6]

(P.73) Valentinus reasons that Silence is the appropriate complement of the

Father, designating the former as feminine and the latter as masculine because

of the grammatical gender of the Greek words. He goes on to describe how Silence

receives, as in a womb, the seed of the Ineffable Source; from this she brings

forth all the emanations of divine being, ranged in harmonious pairs of

masculine and feminine energies.

 

Followers of Valentinus prayed to her for protection as the Mother, and as ‘the

mystical, eternal Silence’. [7] For example, Marcus the magician invokes her as

Grace (in Greek, the feminine term ‘charis’): 'May She who is before all things,

the incomprehensible and indescribable Grace, fill you within, and increase in

you her own knowledge.' [8] In his secret celebration of the mass, Marcus

teaches that the wine symbolized her blood. As the cup of wine is offered, he

prays that ‘Grace may flow’ [9] into all who drink of it. A prophet and

visionary, Marcus calls himself the ‘womb’ and ‘recipient’ of Silence [10] (as

she is of the Father). The visions he received of the divine being appeared, he

reports, in female form.

 

Another gnostic writing, called the 'Great Announcement', quoted by Hippolytus

in his ‘Refutation of All Heresies’, explains the origin of the universe as

follows: From the power of Silence appeared ‘a great power, the Mind of the

Universe, which manages all things, and is a male ... the other ... a great

Intelligence ... is a female which produces all things.’ [11] Following the

gender of the Greek words for ‘mind’ (‘nous’ – masculine) and ‘intelligence’

(‘epinoia’ – feminine), this author explains that these powers, joined in union,

'are discovered to be duality ... This is Mind in Intelligence, and these are

separable from one another, and yet are one, found in a state of duality.’ This

means, the gnostic teacher explains, that there is in everyone [divine power]

existing in a latent condition...This is one power divided above and below;

generating itself, making itself grow, seeking itself, finding itself, being

mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself, daughter

of itself, son of itself – mother, father, unity, being a source of the entire

circle of existence. [12] How did these gnostics intend their meaning to be

understood? Different teachers disagreed. Some insisted that the divine is to be

considered masculo-feminine – the ‘great male-female power’. Others claimed that

the terms were meant only as metaphors, since, in reality, the divine is neither

male nor female. [13] (P.74) A third group suggested that one can describe the

primal Source in either masculine or feminine terms, depending on which aspect

one intends to stress. Proponents of these diverse views agreed that the divine

is to be understood in terms of a harmonious, dynamic relationship of opposites

– a concept that may be akin to the Eastern view of ‘yin’ and ‘yang’, but

remains alien to orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

 

A second characterization of the divine Mother describes her as Holy Spirit. The

‘Apocryphon of John’ relates how John went out after the crucifixion with ‘great

grief’ and had a mystical vision of the Trinity. As John was grieving, he says

that the [heavens were opened and the whole] creation [which is] under heaven

shone and [the world] trembled. [And I was afraid, and I] saw in the light...a

likeness with multiple forms ... and the likeness had three forms. [14] To

John’s question the vision answers: ‘He said to me, “John, Jo[h]n, why do you

doubt, and why are you afraid? ... I am the one who [is with you] always. I [am

the Father]; I am the Mother; I am the Son.”’ [15] This gnostic description of

God – as Father, Mother and Son – may startle us at first, but on reflection, we

can recognize it as another version of the Trinity. The Greek terminology for

the Trinity, which includes the neuter term for spirit (‘pneuma’) virtually

requires that the third ‘Person’ of the Trinity be asexual. But the author of

the ‘Secret Book’ has in mind the Hebrew term for spirit, ‘ruah’, a feminine

word; and so concludes that the feminine 'Person' conjoined with the Father and

Son must be the Mother. The 'Secret Book' goes on to describe the divine Mother:

 

.... (She is) ... the image of the invisible, virginal, perfect spirit...She

became the Mother of everything, for she existed before them all, the

mother-father [matropater]... [16] The ‘Gospel to the Hebrews’ likewise has

Jesus speak of ‘my Mother, the Spirit’. [17] In the ‘Gospel of Thomas’, Jesus

contrasts his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, with his divine Father – the

Father of Truth – and his divine Mother, the Holy Spirit. The author interprets

a puzzling saying of Jesus from the New Testament (‘Whoever does not hate his

father and his mother cannot be my disciple’) by adding that ‘my’ (earthly)

mother [gave me death], but [my] true [Mother] gave me life’. [18] So, according

to the ‘Gospel of Philip’, whoever becomes a Christian gains ‘both father and

mother’ [19] for the Spirit (‘ruah’) is 'Mother of many’. [20]

 

(P.75) A work attributed to the gnostic teacher Simon Magus suggests a mystical

meaning for Paradise, the place where human life began:

 

Grant Paradise to be the womb; for Scripture teaches us that this is a true

assumption when it says, ‘I am He that formed thee in thy mother’s womb’ (Isaiah

44:2) ... Moses ... using allegory had declared Paradise to be the womb ... and

Eden, the placenta ... [21] The river that flows forth from Eden symbolizes the

navel, which nourishes the fetus. Simon claims that the Exodus, consequently,

signifies the passage out of the womb, and that ‘the crossing of the Red Sea

refers to the blood’. Sethian gnostics explain that heaven and earth have a

shape similar to the womb ... and if ... anyone wants to investigate this, let

him carefully examine the pregnant womb of any living creature, and he will

discover an image of the heavens and the earth. [22]

 

Evidence for such views, declares Marcus, comes directly from ‘the cry of the

newborn’, a spontaneous cry of praise for ‘the glory of the primal being, in

which the powers above are in harmonious embrace’. [23]

 

If some gnostic sources suggest that the Spirit constitutes the maternal element

of the Trinity, the ‘Gospel of Philip’ makes an equally radical suggestion about

the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth. Here again, the Spirit is

both Mother and Virgin, the counterpart – and consort – of the Heavenly Father:

‘Is it permitted to utter a mystery? The Father of everything united with the

virgin who came down’ [24] – that is, with the Holy Spirit descending into the

world. But because this process is to be understood symbolically, not literally,

the Spirit remains a virgin. The author goes on to explain that as ‘Adam came

into being from two virgins, from the Spirit and from the virgin earth’ so

‘Christ, therefore, was born from a virgin’ [25] (that is, from the Spirit). But

the author ridicules those literal-minded Christians who mistakenly refer the

virgin birth to Mary, Jesus’ mother, as though she conceived apart from Joseph:

‘They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a

woman?’ [26] Instead, he argues, virgin birth refers to that mysterious union of

the two divine powers, the Father of All and the Holy Spirit. In addition to the

eternal, mystical Silence and the Holy Spirit, certain gnostics suggest a third

characterization of the divine Mother: as Wisdom. Here the Greek term for

‘wisdom’, ‘sophia’, translates a Hebrew feminine term, ‘hokhmah’. (P.76) Early

interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain Biblical passages – for

example, the saying in Proverbs that ‘God made the world in Wisdom’. Could

Wisdom be the feminine power in which God’s creation was ‘conceived’? According

to one teacher, the double meaning of the term conception – physical and

intellectual – suggests this possibility: ‘The image of the thought [‘ennoia’]

is feminine, since ... [it] is a power of conception.’ [27] The ‘Apocalypse of

Adam’, discovered at Nag Hammadi, tells of a feminine power who wanted to

conceive by herself:

 

.... from the nine Muses, one separated away. She came to a high mountain and

spent time seated there, so that she desired herself alone in order to become

androgynous. She fulfilled her desire, and became pregnant from her desire ...

[28]

 

The poet Valentinus uses this theme to tell a famous myth about Wisdom: Desiring

to conceive by herself, apart from her masculine counterpart, she succeeded, and

became the ‘great creative power from whom all things originate’, often called

Eve, ‘Mother of all living’. But since her desire violated the harmonious union

of opposites intrinsic in the nature of created being, what she produced was

aborted and defective; [29] from this, says Valentinus, originated the terror

and grief that mar human existence. [30] To shape and manage her creation,

Wisdom brought forth the demiurge, the creator-God of Israel, as her agent. [31]

 

Wisdom, then, bears several connotations in gnostic sources. Besides being the

‘first universal creator’, [32] who brings forth all creatures, she also

enlightens human beings and makes them wise. Followers of Valentinus and Marcus

therefore prayed to the Mother as the ‘mystical, eternal Silence’ and to ‘Grace,

She who is before all things’, and as ‘incorruptible Wisdom’ [33] for insight

(‘gnosis’). Other gnostics attributed to her the benefits that Adam and Eve

received in Paradise. First, she taught them self-awareness; second, she guided

them to find food; third, she assisted in the conception of their third and

fourth children, who were, according to this account, their third son, Seth, and

their first daughter, Norea. [34] Even more: when the creator became angry with

the human race because they did not worship or honor him as Father and God, he

sent forth a flood upon them, that he might destroy them all. But Wisdom opposed

him... and Noah and his family were saved in the ark by means of the sprinkling

of the light that proceeded from her, and through it the world was again filled

with humankind. [35]

 

(P.77) Another newly discovered text from Nag Hammadi, ‘Trimorphic Protennoia’

(literally, the ‘Triple-formed Primal Thought’), celebrates the feminine powers

of Thought, Intelligence, and Foresight. The text opens as a divine figure

speaks:

 

am [Protennoia the] Thought that [dwells] in [the Light].... [she who

exists] before the All ... I move in every creature.... I am the Invisible One

within the All. [36]

She continues: ‘I am perception and knowledge, uttering a Voice by means of

Thought. am the real Voice. I cry out in everyone, and they know that a seed

dwells within.’ [37] The second section, spoken by a second divine figure, opens

with the words

I am the Voice ... [it is] I [who] speak within every creature ... Now I have

come a second time in the likeness of a female, and have spoken with them ... I

have revealed myself in the Thought of the likeness of my masculinity. [38]

Later the voice explains:

I am androgynous. [i am both Mother and] Father, since [i copulate] with

myself...[and with those who love]me...I am the Womb [that gives shape] to the

All ... I am Me [iroth]ea, the glory of the Mother. [39]

Even more remarkable is the gnostic poem called the ‘Thunder, Perfect Mind’.

This text contains a revelation spoken by a feminine power:

I am the first and the last. I am the honored one and the scorned one. I am the

whore, and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin. I am (the mother) and the

daughter.... I am she whose wedding is great, and I have not taken a husband....

I am knowledge, and ignorance.... I am shameless; I am ashamed. I am strength,

and I am fear.... I am foolish, and I am wise.... I am godless, and I am one

whose God is great. [40]

What does the use of such symbolism imply for the understanding of human nature?

One text, having previously described the divine Source as a ‘bisexual Power’,

goes on to say that ‘what came into being from that Power – that is, humanity,

being one – is discovered to be two: a male-female being that bears the female

within it’. [41] This refers to the story of Eve’s ‘birth’ out of Adam’s side

(so that Adam being one, is ‘discovered to be two’, an androgyne who ‘bears the

female within him’). Yet this reference to the creation story of Genesis 2 (an

account which inverts the biological birth process, and so attributes to the

male the creative function of the female) is unusual in gnostic sources. (P.78)

More often, gnostic writers refer to the first creation account in Genesis

1:26-7 (‘Then God said, Let us make man [‘adam’] in our image, after our

likeness ... in the image of God he created him; male and female he created

them’]. Rabbis in Talmudic times knew a Greek version of the passage that

suggested to Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman, influenced by Plato’s myth of androgyny,

that

when the Holy one ... first created mankind, he created him with two faces, two

sets of genitals, four arms and legs, back to back. Then he split Adam in two,

and made two backs, one on each side. [42] Some gnostics adopted this idea,

teaching that Genesis 1:26-7 narrates an androgynous creation. Marcus (whose

prayer to the Mother is given above) not only concludes from this account that

God is dyadic (‘Let 'us' make humanity’) but also that ‘humanity, which was

formed according to the image and likeness of God (Father and Mother), was

masculo-feminine’. [43] His contemporary, the gnostic Theodotus (c.160),

explains that the saying ‘according to the image of God he made them, male and

female he made them’, means that ‘the male and female elements together

constitute the finest production of the Mother, Wisdom.’ [44] Gnostic sources

which describe God as a dyad whose nature includes both masculine and feminine

elements often give a similar description of human nature.

Yet all the sources cited so far – secret gospels, revelations, mystical

teachings – are among those not included in the select list that constitutes the

New Testament collection. Every one of the secret texts which gnostic groups

revered was omitted from the canonical collection, and branded as heretical by

those who called themselves orthodox Christians. By the time the process of

sorting the various writings ended – probably as late as the year 200 –

virtually all the feminine imagery for God had disappeared from orthodox

Christian tradition.

What is the reason for this total rejection? The gnostics themselves asked this

question of their orthodox opponents and pondered it among themselves. Some

concluded that the God of Israel himself initiated the polemics which his

followers carried out in his name. For, they argued, this creator was a

derivative, merely instrumental power whom the Mother had created to administer

the universe, but his own self-conception was far more grandiose. They say that

he believed that he had made everything by himself, but that, in reality, he had

created the world because Wisdom, his Mother, ‘infused him with energy’ and

implanted into him her own ideas. (P.79) But he was foolish, and acted

unconsciously, unaware that the ideas he used came from her; ‘he was even

ignorant of his own Mother’. [45] Followers of Valentinus suggested that the

Mother Herself had encouraged the God of Israel to think that he was acting

autonomously, but, as they explain, ‘It was because he was foolish and ignorant

of his Mother that he said, “I am God; there is none beside me.”’ [46] According

to another account, the creator caused his Mother to grieve by creating inferior

beings, so she left him alone and withdrew into the upper regions of the

heavens. ‘Since she departed, he imagined that he was the only being in

existence; and therefore he declared, “I am a jealous God, and besides me there

is no one.”’ [47] Others agree in attributing to him this more sinister motive –

jealousy. According to the ‘Secret Book of John’:

.... he said ...,’I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.’ But

by announcing this he indicated to the angels...that another God does exist; for

if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? ... Then the mother

began to be distressed. [48]

Others declared that his Mother refused to tolerate such presumption: [The

creator], becoming arrogant in spirit, boasted himself over all those things

that were below him, and exclaimed, ‘I am father, and God, and above me there is

no one.’ But his mother, hearing him speak thus, cried out against him, ‘Do not

lie, Ialdabaoth ... ‘ [49] Often, in these gnostic texts, the creator is

castigated for his arrogance – nearly always by a superior feminine power.

According to the ‘Hypostasis of the Archons’, discovered at Nag Hammadi, both

the mother and her daughter objected when he became arrogant, saying, ‘It is I

who am God, and there is no other apart from me.’ ...And a voice came forth from

above the realm of absolute power, saying, ‘You are wrong, Samael’ [which means,

‘god of the blind’]. And he said, ‘If any other thing exists before me, let it

appear to me!’ And immediately, Sophia (‘Wisdom’) stretched forth her finger,

and introduced light into matter, and she followed it down into the region of

Chaos.... And he again said to his offspring, ‘It is I who am the God of All.’

And Life, the daughter of Wisdom, cried out; she said to him, ‘You are wrong,

Saklas!’ [50]

The gnostic teacher Justinus describes the Lord’s shock, terror, and anxiety

‘when he discovered that he was not the God of the universe’. (P.80) Gradually

his shock gave way to wonder, and finally he came to welcome what Wisdom had

taught him. The teacher concludes: ‘This is the meaning of the saying, “The fear

of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.”’ [51]

Yet all of these are mythical explanations. Can we find any actual, historical

reasons why these gnostic writings were suppressed? This raises a much larger

question: By what means, and for what reasons, did certain ideas come to be

classified as heretical, and others as orthodox, by the beginning of the third

century? We may find one clue to the answer if we ask whether gnostic Christians

derive any practical, social consequences from their conception of God – and of

humanity – in terms that included the feminine element. Here, clearly, the

answer is ‘yes’.

Bishop Irenaeus notes with dismay that women especially are attracted to

heretical groups. ‘Even in our own district of the Rhone valley,’ he admits, the

gnostic teacher Marcus had attracted ‘many foolish women’ from his own

congregation, including the wife of one of Irenaeus’ own deacons. [52]

Professing himself to be at a loss to account for the attraction that Marcus’

group held, he offers only one explanation: that Marcus himself was a

diabolically clever seducer, a magician who compounded special aphrodisiacs to

‘deceive, victimize, and defile’ his prey. Whether his accusations have any

factual basis no one knows. But when he describes Marcus’ techniques of

seduction, Irenaeus indicates that he is speaking metaphorically. For, he says,

Marcus’ addresses them in such seductive words’ as his prayers to Grace, ‘She

who is before all things’, [53] and to Wisdom and Silence, the feminine element

of the divine being. Second, he says, Marcus seduced women by ‘telling them to

prophesy’ [54] – which they were strictly forbidden to do in the orthodox

church. When he initiated a woman, Marcus concluded the initiation prayer with

the words ‘Behold, Grace has come upon you; open your mouth, and prophesy.’ [55]

Then, as the bishop indignantly describes it, Marcus’ 'deluded victim ...

impudently utters some nonsense', and ‘henceforth considers herself to be a

prophet!’ Worst of all, from Irenaeus’ viewpoint, Marcus invited women to act as

priests in celebrating the eucharist with him: he ‘hands the cups to women’ [56]

to offer up the eucharistic prayer, and to pronounce the words of consecration.

Tertullian expresses similar outrage at such acts of gnostic Christians:

(P.81) These heretical women – how audacious they are! They have no modesty;

they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to

undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize! [57]

Tertullian directed another attack against ‘that viper’ [58] – a woman teacher

who led a congregation in North Africa. He himself agreed with what he called

the ‘precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women’, which specified:

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church, nor is it permitted for

her to teach, nor to baptize, not to offer [the eucharist], nor to claim for

herself a share in any ‘masculine’ function – not to mention any priestly

office. [59]

One of Tertullian’s prime targets, the heretic Marcion, had, in fact,

scandalized his orthodox contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis

with men as priests and bishops. The gnostic teacher Marcellina travelled to

Rome to represent the Carpocratian group, [60] which claimed to have received

secret teaching from Mary, Salome, and Martha. The Montanists, a radical

prophetic circle, honored two women, Prisca and Maximilla, as founders of the

movement.

Our evidence, then, clearly indicates a correlation between religious theory and

social practice. [61] Among such gnostic groups as the Valentinians, women were

considered equal to men; some were revered as prophets; others acted as

teachers, travelling evangelists, healers, priests, perhaps even bishops. This

general observation is not, however, universally applicable. At least three

heretical circles that retained a masculine image of God included women who took

positions of leadership – the Marcionites, the Montanists, and the

Carpocratians. But from the year 200, we have no evidence for women taking

prophetic, priestly, and episcopal roles among orthodox churches.

This is an extraordinary development, considering that in its earliest years the

Christian movement showed a remarkable openness toward women. Jesus himself

violated Jewish convention by talking openly with women, and he included them

among his companions. Even the gospel of Luke in the New Testament tells his

reply when Martha, his hostess, complains to him that she is doing housework

alone while her sister Mary sits listening to him: ‘Do you not care that my

sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her, then, to help me.’ But instead of

supporting her, Jesus chides Martha for taking upon herself so many anxieties,

declaring that ‘one thing is needful: Mary has chosen the good portion, which

shall not be taken away from her.’ [62] (P.82) Some ten to twenty years after

Jesus’ death, certain women held positions of leadership in local Christian

groups; women acted as prophets, teachers, and evangelists. Professor Wayne

Meeks suggests that, at Christian initiation, the person presiding ritually

announced that ‘in Christ ... there is neither male nor female’. [63] Paul

quotes this saying, and endorses the work of women he recognizes as deacons and

fellow workers; he even greets one, apparently, as an outstanding apostle,

senior to himself in the movement. [64]

Yet Paul also expresses ambivalence concerning the practical implications of

human equality. Discussing the public activity of women in the churches, he

argues from his own – traditionally Jewish - conception of a monistic, masculine

God for a divinely ordained hierarchy of social subordination: as God has

authority over Christ, he declares, citing Genesis 2-3, so man has authority

over woman:

.... a man ... is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For

man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for

woman, but woman for man.) [65]

While Paul acknowledged women as his equals ‘in Christ’, and allowed for them a

wider range of activity than did traditional Jewish congregations, he could not

bring himself to advocate their equality in social and political terms. Such

ambivalence opened the way for the statements found in I Corinthians 14, 34 f.,

whether written by Paul or inserted by someone else: ‘... the women should keep

silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but they should be

subordinate ... it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.’ Such

contradictory attitudes toward women reflect a time of social transition, as

well as the diversity of cultural influences on churches scattered throughout

the known world. [66] In Greece and Asia Minor, women participated with men in

religious cults, especially the cults of the Great Mother and of the Egyptian

goddess Isis. [67] While the leading roles were reserved for men, women took

part in the services and professions. Some women took up education, the arts,

and professions such as medicine. In Egypt, women had attained, by the first

century A.D., a relatively advanced state of emancipation, socially,

politically, and legally. In Rome, forms of education had changed, around 200

B.C., to offer to some children from the aristocracy the same curriculum for

girls as for boys. Two hundred years later, at the beginning of the Christian

era, the archaic, patriarchal forms of Roman marriage were increasingly giving

way to a new legal form in which the man and woman bound themselves to each

other with voluntary and mutual vows. (P.83) The French scholar Jerome

Carcopino, in a discussion entitled ‘Feminism and Demoralization’, explains that

by the second century A.D., upper-class women often insisted upon ‘living their

own life’. [68] Male satirists complained of their aggressiveness in discussions

of literature, mathematics, and philosophy, and ridiculed their enthusiasm for

writing poems, plays, and music. [69] Under the Empire, ‘women were everywhere

involved in business, social life, such as theaters, sports events, concerts,

parties, travelling - with or without their husbands. They took part in a whole

range of athletics, even bore arms and went to battle...’ [70] and made major

inroads into professional life. Women of the Jewish communities, on the other

hand, were excluded from actively participating in public worship, in education,

and in social and political life outside the family. [71]

Yet despite all of this, and despite the previous public activity of Christian

women, the majority of Christian churches in the second century went with the

majority of the middle class in opposing the move toward equality, which found

its support primarily in rich or what we would call bohemian circles. By the

year 200, the majority of Christian communities endorsed as canonical the

pseudo-Pauline letter of Timothy, which stresses (and exaggerates) the

antifeminist element in Paul’s views: ‘Let a woman learn in silence with all

submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is

to keep silent.’ [72] Orthodox Christians also accepted as Pauline the letters

to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, which order that women ‘be subject in

everything to their husbands’. [73]

Clement, Bishop of Rome, writes in his letter to the unruly church in Corinth

that women are to ‘remain in the rule of subjection’ [74] to their husbands.

While in earlier times Christian men and women sat together for worship, in the

middle of the second century – precisely at the time of struggle with gnostic

Christians – orthodox communities began to adopt the synagogue custom,

segregating women from men. [75] By the end of the second century, women’s

participation in worship was explicitly condemned: groups in which women

continued on to leadership were branded as heretical.

What was the reason for these changes? The scholar Johannes Leipoldt suggests

that the influx of many Hellenized Jews into the movement may have influenced

the church in the direction of Jewish traditions, but, as he admits, ‘this is

only an attempt to explain the situation: 'the reality itself is the only

certain thing'. [76] (P.84) Professor Morton Smith suggests that the change may

have resulted from Christianity’s move up in social scale from lower to middle

class. He observes that in the lower class, where all labor was needed, women

had been allowed to perform any services they could (so today, in the Near East,

only middle-class women are veiled).

Both orthodox and gnostic texts suggest that this question proved to be

explosively controversial. Antagonists on both sides resorted to the polemical

technique of writing literature that allegedly derived from apostolic times,

professing to give the original apostles’ views on the subject. As noted before,

the ‘Gospel of Philip’ tells of rivalry between the male disciples and Mary

Magdalene, here described as Jesus’ most intimate companion, the symbol of

divine Wisdom:

.... the companion of the [savior is] Mary Magdalene. [but Christ loved] her more

than [all] the disciples and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest

of [the disciples were offended by it...]. They said to him, ‘Why do you love

her more than all of us?’ The Savior answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not

love you as [i love] her?’ [77]

The ‘Dialogue of the Savior’ not only includes Mary Magdalene as one of three

disciples chosen to receive special teaching but also praises her above the

other two, Thomas and Matthew: ‘... she spoke as a woman who knew the All’. [78]

Other secret texts use the figure of Mary Magdalene to suggest that women’s

activity challenged the leaders of the orthodox community, who regarded Peter as

their spokesman. The ‘Gospel of Mary’ relates that when the disciples,

disheartened and terrified after the crucifixion, asked Mary to encourage them

by telling them what the Lord had told her secretly, she agrees, and teaches

them until Peter, furious, asks, ‘Did he really speak privately with a woman,

(and) not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he

prefer her to us?’ Distressed at his rage, Mary replies, ‘My brother Peter, what

do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I

am lying about the Savior?’ Levi breaks in at this point to mediate the dispute:

‘Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the

woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you,

indeed, to reject her? Surely the Lord knew her very well. That is why he loved

her more than us.’ [79] Then the others agree to accept Mary’s teaching, and,

encouraged by her words, go out to preach. (P.84) Another argument between Peter

and Mary occurs in ‘Pistis Sophia’ (‘Faith Wisdom’). Peter complains that Mary

is dominating the conversation with Jesus and displacing the rightful priority

of Peter and his brother apostles. He urges Jesus to silence her and is quickly

rebuked. Later, however, Mary admits to Jesus that she hardly dares speak to him

freely because, in her words, ‘Peter makes me hesitate; I am afraid of him,

because he hates the female race.’ [80] Jesus replies that whoever the Spirit

inspires is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.

Orthodox Christians retaliated with alleged ‘apostolic’ letters and dialogues

that make the opposite point. The most famous examples are, of course, the

pseudo-Pauline letters cited above. In I and II Timothy, Colossians, and

Ephesians, ‘Paul’ insists that women be subordinate to men. The letter of Titus,

in Paul’s name, directs the selection of bishops in terms that entirely exclude

women from consideration. Literally and figuratively, the bishop is to be a

father figure to the congregation. He must be a man whose wife and children are

‘submissive [to him] in every way’; this proves his ability to keep ‘God’s

church’ [81] in order, and its members properly subordinated. Before the end of

the second century, the 'Apostolic Church Order' appeared in orthodox

communities. Here the apostles are depicted discussing controversial questions.

With Mary and Martha present, John says,

When the Master blessed the bread and the cup and signed them with the words,

‘This is my body and blood,’ he did not offer it to the women who are with us.

Martha said, ‘he did not offer it to Mary, because he saw her laugh.’ Mary said,

‘I no longer laugh; he said to us before, as he taught, “Your weakness is

redeemed through strength.”’ [82]

But her argument fails; the male disciples agree that, for this reason, no woman

shall be allowed to become a priest.

We can see, then, two very different patterns of sexual attitudes emerging in

orthodox and gnostic circles. In simplest form, many gnostic Christians

correlate their description of God in both masculine and feminine terms with a

complementary description of human nature. Most often they refer to the creation

account of Genesis 1, which suggests an equal or androgynous human creation.

Gnostic Christians often take the principle of equality between men and women

into the social and political structures of their communities. (P.86) The

orthodox pattern is strikingly different: it describes God in exclusively

masculine terms, and typically refers to Genesis 2 to describe how Eve was

created from Adam, and for his fulfilment. Like the gnostic view, this

translates into social practice: by the late second century, the orthodox

community came to accept the domination of men over women as the divinely

ordained order, not only for social and family life, but also for the Christian

churches.

Yet exceptions to these patterns do occur. Gnostics were not unanimous in

affirming women – nor were the orthodox unanimous in denigrating them. Certain

gnostic texts undeniably speak of the feminine in terms of contempt. The ‘Book

of Thomas the Contender’ addresses men with the warning ‘Woe to you who love

intimacy with womankind, and polluted intercourse with it!’ [83] The ‘Paraphrase

of Shem’, also from Nag Hammadi, describes the horror of Nature, who 'turned her

dark vagina and cast from her the power of fire, which was in her from the

beginning, through the practice of darkness'. [84] According to the ‘Dialogue of

the Savior’, Jesus warns his disciples to ‘pray in the place where there is no

woman’, and to 'destroy the works of femaleness...' [85]

Yet in each of these cases the target is not woman, but the power of sexuality.

In the ‘Dialogue of the Savior’, for example, Mary Magdalene, praised as ‘the

woman who knew the All’, stands among the three disciples who receive Jesus’

commands: she, along with Judas and Matthew, rejects the ‘works of femaleness’ –

that is, apparently, the activities of intercourse and procreation. [86] These

sources show that some extremists in the gnostic movement agreed with certain

radical feminists who today insist that only those who renounce sexual activity

can achieve human equality and spiritual greatness. Other gnostic sources

reflect the assumption that the status of a man is superior to that of a woman.

Nor need this surprise us; as language comes from social experience, any of

these writers, whether man or woman, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, or Jewish, would

have learned this elementary lesson from his or her social experience. Some

gnostics, reasoning that as ‘man’ surpasses ‘woman’ in ordinary existence, so

the ‘divine’ surpasses the ‘human’, transform the terms into metaphor. The

puzzling saying attributed to Jesus in the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ – that Mary must

become male in order to become a ‘living spirit, resembling you males. For every

woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven’ [87] – may be

taken symbolically: what is merely human (therefore ‘female’) must be

transformed into what is divine (the ‘living spirit’, the ‘male’). (P.87) So,

according to other passages in the ‘Gospel of Thomas’, Salome and Mary become

Jesus’ disciples when they transcend their human nature, and so ‘become male’.

[88] In the ‘Gospel of Mary’, Mary herself urges the other disciples to ‘praise

his greatness, for he has prepared us, and made us into ‘men’ ‘ [89]

Conversely, we find a striking exception to the orthodox pattern in the writings

of one revered father of the church, Clement of Alexandria. Clement, writing in

Egypt c.180, identifies himself as orthodox, although he knows members of

gnostic groups and their writings well: some even suggest that he was himself a

gnostic initiate. Yet his own works demonstrate how all three elements of what

we have called the gnostic pattern could be worked into fully orthodox

teachings. First, Clement characterizes God in feminine as well as masculine

terms:

The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and nurse

.... The nutriment is the milk of the Father ... and the Word alone supplies us

children with the milk of love, and only those who suck at this breast are truly

happy. For this reason, seeking is called sucking; to those infants who seek the

Word, the Father’s loving breasts supply milk. [90]

Second, in describing human nature, he insists that

man and woman share equally in perfection, and are to receive the same

instruction and the same discipline. For the name ‘humanity’ is common to both

men and women; and for us ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female’. [91]

As he urges women to participate with men in the community, Clement offers a

list – unique in orthodox tradition – of women whose achievements he admires.

They range from ancient examples, like Judith, the assassin who destroyed

Israel’s enemy, to Queen Esther, who rescued her people from genocide, as well

as others who took radical political stands. He mentions Arignote the writer,

Themisto the Epicurean philosopher, and many other women philosophers, including

two who had studied with Plato, and one trained by Socrates. Indeed, he cannot

contain his praise:

What shall I say? Did not Theano the Pythagorean make such progress in

philosophy that when a man, staring at her, said, ‘Your arm is beautiful,’ she

replied, ‘Yes, but it is not on public display.’ [92]

Clement concludes his list with famous women poets and painters.

But Clement’s demonstration that even orthodox Christians could affirm the

feminine element – and the active participation of women – found little

following. (P.88) His perspective, formed in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of

Alexandria and articulated among wealthy and educated members of Egyptian

society, may have proved too alien for the majority of Western Christian

communities which were scattered from Asia Minor to Greece, Rome, and provincial

Africa and Gaul. The majority adopted instead the position of Clement’s severe

and provincial contemporary, Tertullian:

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church, nor is it permitted for

her to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer [the eucharist], nor to claim for

herself a share in any masculine function – least of all, in priestly office.

[93]

Their consensus, which ruled out Clement’s position, has continued to dominate

the majority of Christian churches: nearly 2,000 years later, in 1977, Pope Paul

VI, Bishop of Rome, declared that a woman cannot be a priest ‘because our Lord

was a man’! The Nag Hammadi sources, discovered at a time of contemporary social

crises concerning sexual roles, challenge us to reinterpret history – and to

re-evaluate the present situation.

Reading Judas - The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity,

Pg. 71-88

Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King

Penguin Group – London, England

ISBN 978-0-713-99984-6

Notes (P.166-169) - Chapter Three

[1] Where the God of Israel is characterized as husband and lover in the Old

Testament, his spouse is described as the community of Israel (e.g., Isaiah

50:1; 54:1-8; Jeremiah 2:2-3; 20-25; 3:1-20; Hosea 1-4, 14) or as the land of

Israel (Isaiah 62:1-5).

[2] One may note several exceptions to this rule: Deuteronomy 32:11; Hosea 11:1;

Isaiah 66:12ff.; Numbers 11:12.

[3]Formerly, as Professor Morton Smith reminds me, theologians often used the

masculinity of God to justify, by analogy, the roles of men as rulers of their

societies and households (he cites, for example, Milton's 'Paradise Lost' IV.296

ff., 635 ff.)

[4] 'Gospel of Thomas' 51.19-26, in NHL 130.

[5] Hippolytus REF 5.6.

[6] Irenaeus, AH 1.11.1.

[7] ibid., 1.13.6.

[8] ibid., 1.13.2.

[9] ibid., 1.13.2.

[10] ibid., 1.14.1.

[11] Hippolytus, REF 6.18.

[12] ibid., 6.17.

[13] Irenaeus, AH 1.11.5; Hippolytus, REF 6.29.

[14] 'Apocryphon of John' 1.31-2.9, in NHL 99.

[15] ibid., 2.9-14, in NHL 99.

[16] ibid., 4.34-5.7, in NHL 101.

[17] 'Gospel to the Hebrews', cited in Origen, COMM. JO. 2.12.

[18] 'Gospel of Thomas' 49.32-50.1, in NHL 128-9.

[19] 'Gospel of Philip' 52.24, in NHL 132.

[20] ibid., 59.35-60.1, in NHL 136.

[21] Hippolytus, REF 6.14.

[22] ibid., 5.19.

[23] Irenaeus, AH 1.14.7-8.

[24] 'Gospel of Philip' 71.3-5, in NHL 143.

[25] ibid., 71.16-19, in NHL 143.

[26] ibid., 55.25-6, in NHL 134.

[27] Hippolytus, REF 6.38.

[28] 'Apocalypse of Adam' 81.2-9, in NHL 262. See note 42 for references.

[29] Irenaeus, AH 1.2.2-3.

[30] ibid., 1.4.1.- 1.5.4.

[31] ibid., 1.5.1-3. For discussion of the figure of Sophia, see the excellent

articles of G.C. Stead, 'The Valentinian Myth of Sophia', in 'Journal of

Theological Studies 20' (1969), 75-104; and G.W. MacRae, 'The Jewish Background

of the Gnostic Sophia Myth', in 'Novum Testamentum 12.

[32] Clemens Alexandrinus, EXCERPTA 47.1.

[33] Irenaeus, AH 1.13.1-6.

[34] ibid., 1.30.9

[35] ibid., 1.30.10.

[36]'Trimorphic Protennoia' 35.1-24, in NHL 461-2.

[37] ibid., 36.12-16, in NHL 462.

[38] ibid., 42.4-26, in NHL 465-6.

[39] ibid., 45.2-10, in NHL 467.

[40] 'Thunder, Perfect Mind' 13.16-16.25, in NHL 271-4.

[41] Hippolytus, REF 6.18

[42] 'Genesis Rabba' 8.1, cited in an excellent discussion of androgyny by W.A.

Meeks, 'The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest

Christianity', in 'History of Religions' 13.3 (February 1974), 165-208. For a

discussion of androgyny in gnostic sources, see Pagels, 'The Gnostic Vision', in

'Parabola' 3.4 (November 1978), 6-9.

[43] Irenaeus, AH 1.18.2.

[44] Clemens Alexandrinus, EXCERPTA 21.1.

[45] Hippolytus, REF 6.33.

[46] Irenaeus, AH 1.5.4; Hippolytus, REF 6.33.

[47] ibid., 1.29.4.

[48] 'Apocryphon of John' 13.8-14, in NHL 106.

[49] Irenaeus, AH 1.30.6.

Note the collection of passages cited by N.A. Dahl in 'The Gnostic Response: The

Ignorant Creator', prepared for the Nag Hammadi Section of the Society of

Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, 1976.

[50] 'Hypostasis of the Archons' 94.21-95.7, in NHL 158.

[51] Hippolytus, REF 6.32.

[52] Irenaeus, AH 1.13.5.

[53] ibid., 1.13.3.

[54] ibid., 1.13.4.

[55] ibid., 1.13.3.

[56] Hippolytus, REF 6.35; Irenaeus, AH 1.13.1-2.

[57] Tertullian, DE PRAESCR.41.

[58] Tertullian, 'De Baptismo' 1.

[59] Tertullian, 'De Virginibus Velandis' 9. Emphasis added.

[60] Irenaeus, AH 1.25.6.

[61] This general observation is not, however, universally applicable. At least

two circles where women acted on an equal basis with men - the Marcionites and

the Montanists - retained a traditional doctrine of God. I know of no evidence

to suggest that they included feminine imagery in their theological

formulations. For discussion and references, see J. Leipoldt, 'Die Frau in der

antiken Welt und im Urchristentum (Leipzig, 1955), 187 ff.; E.S. Fiorenza,

'Word, Spirit, and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities', in 'Women of

Spirit', ed. R. Reuther and E. McLaughlin (New York, 1979), 39 ff.

[62] Luke 10:38-42.

Cf. Romans 16:1-2; Colossians 4:15; Acts 2:25; 21:9; Romans 16:6; 16:12;

Philippians 4:2-3.

[63] See W. Meeks, 'The Image of the Androgyne', 180f. Most scholars agree with

Meeks that in Galatians 3:28, Paul quotes a saying that itself belongs to

pre-Pauline tradition.

[64] Romans 16:7

This was first pointed out to me by Cyril C. Richardson, and confirmed by recent

research of B. Brooten, 'Junia...Outstanding Among the Apostles', in 'Women

Priests', ed.L. and A. Swidler (New York, 1977), 141-4.

[65] I Corinthians 11:7-9.

For discussion of I Corinthians 11:7-9, see R. Scroggs, 'Paul and the

Eschatological Woman', in 'Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40'

(1972), 283-303, and the critique by Pagels, 'Paul and Women: A Response to

Recent Discussion', in 'Journal of the American Academy of Religion' 42 (1974),

538-49. Also see references in Fiorenza, 'Word, Spirit, and Power', 62, nn. 24

and 25.

[66] See Leipoldt, 'Die Frau'; also C. Schneider, 'Kulturgeschichte des

Hellenismus' (Munich, 1967), I, 78 ff.; S.A. Pomeroy, 'Goddesses, Whores, Wives,

and Slaves' (New York, 1975).

[67] Cf. C. Vatin, 'Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme

marriee a l'epoque hellenistique (Paris, 1970).

[68] J. Carcopino, 'Daily Life in Ancient Rome', trans. by E.O. Lorimer (New

Haven, 1951), 95-100.

[69] ibid., 90-5.

[70] L. Swidler, 'Greco-Roman Feminism and the Reception of the Gospel', in

'Traditio - Krisis - Renovatio', ed. B. Jaspert (Marburg, 1976), 41-55; see also

J. Balsdon, 'Roman Women, Their History and Habits' (London, 1962); L.

Friedlander, 'Roman Life and Manners Under the Early Empire' (Oxford, 1928); B.

Fortsch, 'Die politische Rolle der Frau in der romischen Republik' (Stuttgart,

1935). On women in Christian communities, see Fiorenza, 'Word, Spirit, and

Power'; R. Gryson, 'The Ministry of Women in the Early Church' (Minnesota,

1976); K. Thraede, 'Frau', 'Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum VIII

(Stuttgart, 1973), 197-269.

[71] Leipoldt, 'Die Frau', 72 ff.; R.H. Kennet, 'Ancient Hebrew Social Life and

Custom' (London, 1933); G.F. Moore, 'Judaism in the First Centuries of the

Christian Era' (Cambridge, 1932).

[72] I Timothy 2:11-12.

[73] Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18.

[74] I Clement 1:3.

[75] Leipoldt, 'Die Frau', 192; 'Hippolytus of Rome', 43.1, ed. Paul de Lagarder

('Aegyptiaca', 1883), 253.

[76] Leipoldt, 'Die Frau', 193. Emphasis added.

[77] 'Gospel of Philip' 63:32-64.5, in NHL 138.

[78] 'Dialogue of the Savior' 139.12-13, in NHL 235.

[79] 'Gospel of Mary' 17.18-18.15, in NHL 473.

[80] 'Pistis Sophia' 36.71.

[81] I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9.

[82] 'Apostolic Tradition' 18.3.

[83] 'Book of Thomas the Contender' 144.8-10, in NHL 193.

[84] 'Paraphrase of Shem' 27.2-6; in NHL 320.

[85] 'Dialogue of the Savior 144.16-20, in NHL 237.

[86] ibid., 139.12-13, in NHL 235.

[87] 'Gospel of Thomas' 51.23-6, in NHL 130.

[88] ibid., 37.20-35, in NHL 121; 43.25-35, in NHL 124-5.

[89] 'Gospel of Mary' 9.20, in NHL 472. Emphasis added.

[90] Clemens Alexandrinus, 'Paidagogos' 1.6.

[91] ibid., 1.4.

[92] ibid., 1.19.

[93] Tertullian, DE VIRG. VEL. 9.