|
|
|---|
|
Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity
Elaine H.Pagels.
Taken from Womanspirit Rising pp107-119. Ed.
Carol P.Christ and Judith Plaskow. Harper & Row, 1979.
Elaine H. Pagels received her Ph. D. from Harvard University and now
teaches at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is author of The
Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis and The Gnostic Paul. Her
articles have appeared in Harvard Theological Review, Journal for Biblical
Literature, and Journal of the American Academy of Religion. This
essay originally appeared in Signs (Vol. 2, no. 2), c 1976 by The
University of Chicago, and is reprinted by permission of The University of
Chicago Press.
Unlike many of his contemporaries among the deities of the ancient Near East,
the God of Israel shares his power with no female divinity, nor is he the
divine Husband or Lover of any.(l) He scarcely can be characterized in any but
masculine epithets: King, Lord, Master, Judge, and Father.(2) Indeed, the
absence of feminine symbolism of God marks Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in
striking contrast to the world’s other religious traditions, whether in
Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, and Rome or Africa, Polynesia, India, and North
America. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologians, however, are quick to
point out that God is not to be considered in sexual terms at all. Yet the
actual language they use daily in worship and prayer conveys a different
message and gives the distinct impression that God is thought of in exclusively
masculine terms. And while it is true that Catholics revere Mary as the
mother of Jesus, she cannot be identified 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. And yet of the three divine “Persons,” two—the Father
and Son—are described in masculine terms, and the third—the
Spirit—suggests the sexlessness of the Greek neuter term pneuma.
This is not merely a subjective impression. Whoever investigates the early
development of Christianity—the field called “patristics,” that
is, study of “the fathers of the church”—may not be surprised by
the passage that concludes the recently discovered, secret Gospel of Thomas:
“Simon Peter said to them [the disciples], ‘Let Mary be excluded
from among us, for she is a woman, and not worthy of Life.’ Jesus said,
‘Behold I will take Mary, and make her a male, so that she may become a
living spirit, resembling you males. For I tell you truly, that every female
who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’”(3) Strange
as it sounds, this only states explicitly what religious rhetoric often
assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women
will be allowed to participate only insofar as their own identity is denied and
assimilated to that of the men.
Further exploration of the texts which include this Gospel—written
on papyrus, hidden in large clay jars nearly 1,600 years ago—has
identified them as Jewish and Christian gnostic works which were attacked and
condemned as “heretical” as early as A.D. 100—150. What
distinguishes these “heterodox” texts from those that are called
“orthodox” is at least partially clear: they abound in feminine
symbolism that is applied, in particular, to God. Although one might expect,
then, that they would recall the archaic pagan traditions of the Mother
Goddess, their language is to the contrary specifically Christian, unmistakably
related to a Jewish heritage. Thus we can see that certain gnostic Christians
diverged even more radically from the Jewish tradition than the early
Christians who described God as the “three Persons” or the Trinity.
For, instead of a monistic and masculine God, certain of these texts describe
God as a dyadic being, who consists of both masculine and feminine
elements. One such group of texts, for example, claims to have received a
secret tradition from Jesus through James, and significantly, through Mary
Magdalene.(4) Members of this group offer prayer 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,
mankind of the mighty name.”(5) Other texts indicate that their authors
had pondered the nature of the beings to whom a single, masculine God proposed,
“Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).
Since the Genesis account goes on to say that mankind was created “male
and female” (1:27), some concluded, apparently, that the God in whose
image we are created likewise must be both masculine and feminine—both
Father and Mother.
The
characterization of the divine Mother in these sources is not simple since the
texts themselves are extraordinarily diverse. Nevertheless, three primary
characterizations merge. First, a certain poet and teacher, Valentinus, begins
with the premise that God is essentially indescribable. And yet he suggests
that the divine can be imagined as a Dyad consisting of two elements: one he
calls the Ineffable, the Source, the Primal Father; the other, the Silence, the
Mother of all things.(6) Although we might question Valentinus’s reasoning
that Silence is the appropriate complement of what is Ineffable, his equation
of the former with the feminine and the latter with the masculine may be traced
to the grammatical gender of the Greek words. Followers of Valentinus invoke
this feminine power, whom they also call “Grace” (in Greek, the
feminine term charis), in their own private celebration of the Christian
eucharist: they call her “divine, eternal Grace, She who is before all
things.”(7) At other times they pray to her for protection as the Mother,
“Thou enthroned with God, eternal, mystical Silence.”(8) Marcus, a
disciple of Valentinus, contends that “when Moses began his account of
creation, he mentioned the Mother of all things at the very beginning, when he
said, ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,’
”(9) for the word beginning (in Greek, the feminine arche)
refers to the divine Mother, the source of the cosmic elements. When they
describe God in this way, different gnostic writers have different
interpretations. Some maintain that the divine is to be considered
masculo-feminine—the “great male-female power.” Others insist
that the terms are meant only as metaphors—for, in reality, the divine is
neither masculine nor feminine. A third group suggests that one can
describe the Source of all things in either masculine or feminine terms,
depending on which aspect one intends to stress.(10) Proponents of these
diverse views agree, however, that the divine is to be understood as consisting
of a harmonious, dynamic relationship of opposites—a concept that may be
akin to the eastern view of yin and yang but remains antithetical
to orthodox Judaism and Christianity.
A
second characterization of the divine Mother describes her as Holy Spirit. One
source, the Secret Book of John, for example, relates how John, the
brother of James, went out after the crucifixion with “great grief,”
and had a mystical vision of the Trinity: “As I was grieving . . . the
heavens were opened, and the whole creation shone with an unearthly light, and
the universe was shaken. I was afraid . . . and behold . . . a unity in three
forms appeared to me, and I marvelled: how can a unity have three forms?”
To John’s question, the vision answers: “It said to me, ‘John,
John, why do you doubt, or why do you fear? . . . I am the One who is with you
always: I am the Father; I am the Mother; I am the Son.’(11) John’s
interpretation of the Trinity—as Father, Mother, and Son—may not at
first seem shocking but is perhaps the more natural and spontaneous
interpretation. Where the Greek terminology for the Trinity, which includes the
neuter term for the spirit (pneuma), virtually requires that the third
"Person" of the Trinity be asexual, the author of the Secret Book looks
to the Hebrew term for spirit, ruah—a feminine word. He thus
concludes, logically enough, that the feminine “Person” conjoined
with Father and Son must be the Mother! Indeed, the text goes on to describe
the Spirit as Mother: “the image of the invisible virginal perfect
spirit.... She became the mother of the all, for she existed before them all,
the mother-father [matropater]."(l2) This same author, therefore, alters
Genesis 1:2 ("the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep") to say,
“the Mother then was moved.”(13) The secret Gospel to the Hebrews
likewise has Jesus speak of “my Mother, the Spirit."(l4) And 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 in the New
Testament ("whoever does not hate his father and mother is not worthy of me")
by adding: “Whoever does not love his father and his mother in my way
cannot be my disciple; for my [earthly] mother gave me death but my true Mother
gave me the Life.”(15) Another secret gnostic gospel, the Gospel of
Phillip, declares that whoever becomes a Christian “gains both a
father and a mother."(l6) The author refers explicitly to the feminine Hebrew
term to describe the Spirit as "Mother of many.”(17)
If
these sources suggest that the Spirit constitutes the maternal element of the
Trinity, the Gospel of Phillip makes an equally radical suggestion
concerning the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth. Here again
the Spirit is praised as both Mother and Virgin, the counterpart—and
consort—of the Heavenly Father: “If I may utter a mystery, the Father
of the all united with the Virgin who came down" (l8)—that is,.with the
Holy Spirit. Yet because this process is to be understood symbolically, and not
literally, the Spirit remains a virgin! The author explains that "for this
reason, Christ was ‘born of a virgin’"—that is, of the Spirit,
his divine Mother. But the author ridicules those “literal-minded”
Christians who mistakenly refer the virgin birth to Mary, Jesus’ earthly
mother, as if she conceived apart from Joseph: “Such persons do not know
what they are saying; for when did a female ever impregnate a female?”(19)
Instead, he argues, virgin birth refers to the mysterious union of the two
divine powers, the Father of the All with the Holy Spirit.
Besides the eternal, mystical Silence, and besides the Holy Spirit, certain
gnostics suggest a third characterization of the divine Mother as Wisdom. Here
again the Greek feminine term for wisdom, sophia, like the term for
spirit, ruah, translates a Hebrew feminine term, hokhmah. Early
interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain biblical passages, for
example, Proverbs: “God made the world in Wisdom.” And they wondered
if Wisdom could be the feminine power in which God’s creation is
“conceived”? In such passages, at any rate, Wisdom bears two
connotations: first, she bestows the Spirit that makes mankind wise; second,
she is a creative power. One gnostic source calls her the “first universal
creator”;(20) another says that God the Father was speaking to her when he
proposed to “make mankind in our image."(21) The Great Announcement, a
mystical writing, explains the Genesis account in the following terms: "One
Power that is above and below, self-generating, self-discovering, its own
mother; its own father; its own sister; its own son: Father, Mother, unity,
Root of all things."(22) The same author explains the mystical meaning of the
Garden of Eden as a symbol of the womb: “Scripture teaches us that this is
what is meant when Isaiah says, ‘I am he that formed thee in thy
mother’s womb’ [Isaiah 44:2]. The Garden of Eden, then, is
Moses’ symbolic term for the womb, and Eden the placenta, and the river
which comes out of Eden the navel, which nourishes the fetus.”(23) This
teacher claims that the Exodus, consequently, symbolizes the exodus from the
womb, “and the crossing of the Red Sea, they say, refers to the
blood.” Evidence for this view, he adds, comes directly from “the cry
of the newborn,” a spontaneous cry of praise for “the glory of the
primal being, in which all the powers above are in harmonious
embrace.”(24)
The
introduction of such symbolism in gnostic texts clearly bears implications for
the understanding of human nature. The Great Announcement, for example,
having described the Source as a masculo-feminine being, a “bisexual
Power,” goes on to say that “what came into being from that Power,
that is, humanity, being one, is found to be two: a male-female being that
bears the female within it.”(25) 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
effectively denies the creative function of the female—proves to be
unusual in gnostic sources. More often, such sources refer instead to the first
creation account in Genesis 1:26-27. (“And God said, let us make mankind
in Our image, after Our image and 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, one that suggested to Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman
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.”(26) Some Jewish
teachers (perhaps influenced by the story in Plato’s Symposium) had
suggested that Genesis 1:26-27 narrates an androgynous creation—an idea
that gnostics adopted and developed. Marcus (whose prayer to the Mother is
given above) not only concludes from this account that God is dyadic (“Let
us make mankind”) but also that “mankind, which was formed according
to the image and likeness of God [Father and Mother] was
masculo-feminine.”(27) And his contemporary, Theodotus, explains:
“the saying that Adam was created ‘male and female’ means that
the male and female elements together constitute the finest production of the
Mother, Wisdom.”(28) We can see, then, that the gnostic sources which
describe God in both masculine and feminine terms often give a similar
description of human nature as a dyadic entity, consisting of two equal male
and female components.
All
the texts cited above—secret “gospels,” revelations, mystical
teachings—are among those rejected from the select list of twenty-six that
comprise the “New Testament” collection As these and other writings
were sorted and judged by various Christian communities, every one of these
texts which gnostic groups revered and shared was rejected from the canonical
collection as “heterodox” by those who called themselves
“orthodox” (literally, straight-thinking) Christians. By the time
this process was concluded, probably as late as the year A.D. 200, virtually
all the feminine imagery for God (along with any suggestion of an androgynous
human creation) had disappeared from “orthodox” Christian tradition.
What
is the reason for this wholesale rejection ? The gnostics themselves asked this
question of their “orthodox” attackers and pondered it among
themselves. Some concluded that the God of Israel himself initiated the
polemics against gnostic teaching which his followers carried out in his name.
They argued that he was a derivative, merely instrumental power, whom the
divine Mother had created to administer the universe, but who remained ignorant
of the power of Wisdom, his own Mother: “They say that the creator
believed that he created everything by himself, but that, in reality, he had
made them because his Mother, Wisdom, infused him with energy, and had given
him her ideas. But he was unaware that the ideas he used came from her: he was
even ignorant of his own Mother.”(29) Followers of Valentinus suggested
that the Mother herself encouraged the God of Israel to think that he was
acting autonomously in creating the world; but, as one teacher adds, “It
was because he was foolish and ignorant of his Mother that he said, ‘I am
God; there is none beside me.’ ”(30) Others attribute to him the more
sinister motive of jealousy, among them the Secret Book of John:
“He said, ‘I am a jealous God, and you shall have no other God
before me,’ already indicating that another god does exist. For if there
were no other god, of whom would he be jealous? Then the Mother began to be
distressed.”(31) A third gnostic teacher describes the Lord’s shock,
terror, and anxiety “when he discovered that he was not the God of the
universe.” Gradually his shock and fear gave way to wonder, and finally he
came to welcome the teaching of Wisdom. The gnostic teacher concluded:
“This is the meaning of the saying, ‘The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom.’ ”(32)
All
of these are, of course, mythical explanations. To look for the actual,
historical reasons why these gnostic writings were suppressed is an extremely
difficult proposition, for it raises the much larger question of how (i.e., by
what means and what criteria) certain ideas, including those expressed in the
texts cited above, came to be classified as heretical and others as orthodox by
the beginning of the third century. Although the research is still in its early
stages, and this question is far from being solved, we may find one clue if we
ask whether these secret groups derived any practical, social consequences from
their conception of God—and of mankind—that included the feminine
element? Here again the answer is yes and can be found in the orthodox texts
themselves. Irenaeus, an orthodox bishop, for example, notes with dismay that
women in particular are attracted to heretical groups—especially to
Marcus’s circle, in which prayers are offered to the Mother in her aspects
as Silence, Grace, and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with
men; and women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community what
“the Spirit” reveals to them.(33) Professing himself to be at a loss
to understand the attraction that Marcus’s group holds, he offers only one
explanation: that Marcus himself is a diabolically successful seducer, a
magician who compounds special aphrodisiacs to “deceive, victimize, and
defile” these “many foolish women!” Whether his accusation has
any factual basis is difficult, probably impossible, to ascertain.
Nevertheless, the historian notes that accusations of sexual license are a
stock-in-trade of polemical arguments.(34) The bishop refuses to admit the
possibility that the group might attract Christians—especially
women—for sound and comprehensible reasons. While expressing his own moral
outrage, Tertullian, another “father of the church,” reveals his
fundamental desire to keep women out of religion: “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!”(35) Tertullian directs yet another attack
against “that viper”—a woman teacher who led a congregation in
North Africa.(36) Marcion had, in fact, scandalized his “orthodox”
contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as priests and
bishops among his congregations.(37) The teacher Marcillina also traveled to
Rome to represent the Carpocratian group, an esoteric circle that claimed to
have received secret teaching from Mary, Salome, and Martha.(38) And among the
Montanists, a radical prophetic circle, the prophet Philumene was reputed to
have hired a male secretary to transcribe her inspired oracles.(39)
Other
secret texts, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Wisdom of
Faith, suggest that the activity of such women leaders challenged and
therefore was challenged by the orthodox communities who regarded Peter as
their spokesman. The Gospel of Mary relates that Mary tried to encourage
the disciples after the crucifixion and to tell them what the Lord had told her
privately. Peter, furious at the suggestion, asks, “Did he then talk
secretly with a woman, instead of to us? Are we to go and learn from her
now? Did he love her more than us?” Distressed at his rage, Mary then
asks Peter: “What do you think? Do you think I made this up in my heart?
Do you think I am lying about the Lord?” Levi breaks in at this point to
mediate the dispute: “Peter, you are always irascible. You object to the
woman as our enemies do. Surely the Lord knew her very well, and indeed, he
loved her more than us.” Then he and the others invite Mary to teach them
what she knows.(40) Another argument between Peter and Mary occurs in Wisdom
of Faith. Peter complains that Mary is dominating the conversation, even to
the point of displacing the rightful priority of Peter himself and his
brethren; he urges Jesus to silence her—and is quickly rebuked. Later,
however, Mary admits to Jesus that she hardly dares to speak freely with him,
because “Peter makes me hesitate: I am afraid of him, because he hates the
female race.” Jesus replies that whoever receives inspiration from the
Spirit is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.(41)
As
these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men, they were
revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers, traveling evangelists,
healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these groups, they played
leading roles and were excluded from them in the orthodox churches, at
least by A.D. 150-200. Is it possible, then, that the recognition of the
feminine element in God and the recognition of mankind as a male and female
entity bore within it the explosive social possibility of women acting on an
equal basis with men in positions of authority and leadership? If this were
true, it might lead to the conclusion that these gnostic groups, together with
their conception of God and human nature, were suppressed only because of their
positive attitude toward women. But such a conclusion would be a mistake—a
hasty and simplistic reading of the evidence. In the first place, orthodox
Christian doctrine is far from wholly negative in its attitude toward women.
Second, many other elements of the gnostic sources diverge in fundamental ways
from what came to be accepted as orthodox Christian teaching. To examine this
process in detail would require a much more extensive discussion than is
possible here. Nevertheless, the evidence does indicate that two very different
patterns of sexual attitudes emerged in orthodox and gnostic circles. In
simplest form, gnostic theologians 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 even androgynous) creation of mankind. This conception carries the
principle of equality between men and women into the practical social and
political structures of gnostic communities. The orthodox pattern is strikingly
different: it describes God in exclusively masculine terms and often uses
Genesis 2 to describe how Eve was created from Adam and for his fulfillment.
Like the gnostic view, the orthodox also translates into sociological practice:
by the late second century, orthodox Christians came to accept the domination
of men over women as the proper, God-given order—not only for the human
race, but also for the Christian churches. This correlation between theology,
anthropology, and sociology is not lost on the apostle Paul. In his letter to
the disorderly Corinthian community, he reminds them of a divinely ordained
chain of authority: As God has authority over Christ, so the man has authority
over the woman, argues Paul, citing Genesis 2: “The man is the image and
glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but
woman from man; and besides, the man was not created for the woman’s sake,
but the woman for the sake of the man.”(42) Here the three elements of the
orthodox pattern are welded into one simple argument: the description of God
corresponds to a description of human nature which authorizes the social
pattern of male domination.
A
striking exception to this orthodox pattern occurs in the writings of one
revered “father of the church,” Clement of Alexandria. Clement
identifies himself as orthodox, although he knows members of gnostic groups and
their writings well; some scholars 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” teaching. First, Clement characterizes God not only in
masculine but also in feminine 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.(43) Second, in describing human
nature, he insists that “men and women share equally in perfection, and
are to receive the same instruction and discipline. For the name
‘humanity’ is common to both men and women; and for us ‘in
Christ there is neither male nor female.’”(44) Even in considering
the active participation of women with men in the Christian 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
speaks of Arignole the historian, of Themisto the Epicurean philosopher, and of
many other women philosophers, including two who studied with Plato and one
trained by Socrates. Indeed, he cannot contain his praise: “What shall I
say? Did not Theano the Pythagoran 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.’”(45) Clement concludes
his list with famous women poets and painters.
If
the work of Clement, who taught in Egypt before the lines of orthodoxy and
heresy were rigidly drawn (ca. A.D. 160-80) demonstrates how gnostic principles
could be incorporated even into orthodox Christian teaching, the majority of
communities in the western empire headed by Rome did not follow his example. By
the year A.D. 200, Roman Christians endorsed as “canonical” the
pseudo-Pauline letter to Timothy, which interpreted Paul’s views:
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any
woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent,
for [note Gen. 2!] Adam was formed first, then Eve and furthermore, Adam was
not deceived, but the woman was utterly seduced and came into sin.”(45)
How are we to account for this irreversible development? The question deserves
investigation which this discussion can only initiate. For example, one would
need to examine how (and for what reasons) the zealously patriarchal traditions
of Israel were adopted by the Roman (and other) Christian communities. Further
research might disclose how social and cultural forces converged to suppress
feminine symbolism—and women’s participation—from western
Christian tradition. Given such research, the history of Christianity never
could be told in the same way again.
NOTES
1.
Where the God of Israel is characterized as husband and lover in the Old
Testament (OT), his spouse is described as the community of Israel (i.e., Isa.
50:1, 54:1-8; Jer. 2:2-3, 20-25, 3:1-20; Hos. 1-4, 14) or as the land of Israel
(cf. Isa. 62:1-5).
2.
One may note several exceptions to this rule: Deut. 32:11; Hos. 11:1; Isa.
66:12 ff; Num. 11:12.
3.
The Gospel according to Thomas (hereafter cited as ET), ed. A.
Guillaumount, H. Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, Yassah ‘Abd-al-Masih
(London: Collins, 1959), logion 113-114.
4.
Hippolytus, Refutationis Omnium Haeresium (hereafter cited as Ref),
ed. L. Dunker, F. Schneidewin (Göttingen, 1859), 5.7.
5.
Ref, 5.6.
6.
Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses (hereafter cited as AH), ed. W. W.
Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), 1.11.1.
7.
Ibid., 1.13.2.
8.
Ibid., 1.13.6.
9.
Ibid., 1.18.2.
10.
Ibid., 1.11.5-21.1, 3; Ref, 6.29.
11.
Apocryphon Johannis (hereafter cited as AJ), ed. S. Giversen
(Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1963), 47.20-48.14.
12.
AJ, 52.34-53.6.
13.
Ibid., 61.13-14.
14.
Origen, Commentary on John, 2.12; Hom. On Jeremiah, 15.4.
15.
ET, 101. The text of this passage is badly damaged; I follow here the
reconstruction of G. MacRae of the Harvard Divinity School.
16.
L’Evangile selon Phillipe (hereafter cited as EP), ed. J. E.
Ménard (Leiden: Brill, 1967), logion 6.
17.
EP, logion 36.
18.
Ibid., logion 82.
19.
Ibid., logion 17.
20.
Extraits de Théodote (hereafter cited as Exc), ed. F.
Sagnard, Sources chrétiennes 23 (Paris: Sources chrétiennes,
1948).
21.
AH, 1.30.6.
22.
Ref, 6.17.
23.
Ibid., 6.14.
24.
AH, 1.14.7-8.
25.
Ref, 6.18.
26.
Genesis Rabba 8.1, also 17.6; cf. Levitius Rabba 14. For an excellent
discussion of androgyny, see W. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some
Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” History of Religions 13
(1974): 165-208.
27.
AH, 1.18.2.
28.
Exc, 21.1.
29.
Ref, 6.33.
30.
AH, 1.5.4; Ref, 6.33.
31.
AJ, 61.8-14.
32.
Ref, 7.26.
33.
AH, 1.13.7.
34.
Ibid., 1.13.2-5.
35.
Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (hereafter cited as DP),
ed. E. Oethler (Lipsius, 1853-54), p. 41.
36.
De Baptismo 1. I am grateful to Cyril Richardson for calling my
attention to this passage and to the three subsequent ones.
37.
Epiphanes, De Baptismo, 42.5.
38.
AH, 1.25.6.
39.
DP, 6.30.
40.
The Gospel according to Mary, Codex Berolinensis, BG, 8502,1.7.1-1.19.5,
ea., intro., and trans. G. MacRae, unpublished manuscript.
41.
Pistis Sophia, ed. Carl Schmidt (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1925), 36
(57), 71 (161).
42. 1
Cor. 11 :7-9. For discussion, see R. Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological
Woman,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972):
283-303; R. Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman: Revisited,”
Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 532-37; and E.
Pagels, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” Journal
of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1972): 538-49.
43.
Clement Alexandrinus, Paidegogos, ed. O. Stählin (Leipzig, 1905),
1.6.
44.
Ibid., 1.4.
45.
Ibid., 1.19.
46. 2
Tim. 2:11-14.
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please bookmark us & tell your friends about our website
Stumble
Reddit
Squidoo
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Digg
Slashdot
Fark
Furl
Newsvine
Magnolia
BlinkList
Spurl
Simpy
Do not forget to say a good word about us on your blog
Put a link to us on your own website
Make our website one of your favourites
Google
MyYahoo
Live
Ask
Netscape
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!
