Note: 2 'Source' edits required re God The Father/God The Mother

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir and All,

 

a./ The appended " Acknowledgments " were identified as coming from:

 

> 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

 

 

The " Acknowledgements " should have read as coming from:

 

The Gnostic Gospels, Pg. 9-10

Acknowledgements

Elaine Pagels

Phoenix Publishers - St. Martin's Lane, London

ISBN 13: 978-0-7538-2114-5

 

 

b./ The appended article of " God the Father/God the Mother " was identified as

coming from:

 

> 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

 

It should have read as coming from:

 

The Gnostic Gospels, Pg. 71-88

Elaine Pagels

Phoenix Publishers - St. Martin's Lane, London

ISBN 13: 978-0-7538-2114-5

 

My sincere apologies.

 

regards,

 

violet

 

 

 

, " Violet " <violetubb

wrote:

>

> 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.

>