READING 1 CORINTHIANS WITH PHILOSOPHICALLY EDUCATED WOMEN
Nathan John Barnes
Bachelor of Arts, 2001 Wayland Baptist University Plainview, TX Master of Arts, 2003 Wayland Baptist University Plainview, TX
Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Brite Divinity School in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Interpretation Fort Worth, TX May 2012
UMI Number: 3507443
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3507443 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
For Leslee Jean Barnes With gratitude to the faculty of Brite Divinity School
READING 1 CORINTHIANS WITH PHILOSOPHICALLY EDUCATED WOMEN
APPROVED BY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE:
Warren Carter Dissertation Director Shelly Matthews Reader Francisco Lozada
Reader
Jeffery Williams
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Nancy J. Ramsay Dean
WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish photocopy or reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excessof “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
© Nathan J. Barnes 2012
CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: A HISTORY OF RESEARCH ................................. 1 Paul within the Corpus Hellenisticum ................................... 8 Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity of the SBL .............. 21 Popular Hellenistic Philosophy and Paul ................................ 25 Pythagoreanism ............................................... 34 Platonism ................................................... 37 Cynicism .................................................... 40 Stoicism .................................................... 41 Paul and Seneca............................................... 43 Epicureanism................................................. 44 Evaluation ....................................................... 46 The Conversation Concerning Women in Greco-Roman Philosophy ........... 48 Philosophically Educated Women Reading Paul: A Neglected Topic ........... 54 The Corinthian Women Prophets and the Philosophically Educated Women ..... 58 Moving Forward.................................................. 61 CHAPTER 2: EDUCATED WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD............... 63 Educated Women in the Ancient Greece and Rome ........................ 64 The Educated Woman at Work: Doctors, Scribes, and Merchants ............. 65 The Educated Woman: Greek and Roman Poets .......................... 74 Women’s Interest in Education: Papyri and Beyond ....................... 96 Teachers and Students ............................................. 101 v
CHAPTER 3: WOMEN IN PHILOSOPHY................................. 107 Women in the History of Philosophy .................................. 107 Women in the Pre-Socratics..................................... 117 The First Philosophically Educated Women: The Pythagorizing Women ... 118 Pythagoreanism and Early Christianity ............................ 121 Biographers of Pythagoras: More Teachings of Theano ................ 129 Women Associated with Socrates and the Academy .................. 136 The Cyrenian School .......................................... 146 The Epicurean Women ........................................ 147 The Cynic: Crates and Hipparchia ................................ 158 The Roman Tradition.............................................. 164 Pliny the Younger............................................ 167 Seneca ..................................................... 168 Musonius Rufus and Heirocles .................................. 171 Summary of Conclusions: Women in the History of Philosophy ............. 174 CHAPTER 4: CORINTH AND ITS PHILOSOPHERS ........................ 177 Classical Corinth ................................................. 178 Roman Corinth .................................................. 181 Philosophers in Corinth ............................................ 183 Philosophically Educated Women in the Corinthian Church ................ 204 A Corinthian Christian in Public Office: Erastus ..................... 207 Crispus the Corinthian Synagogue Leader .......................... 212 Christians in Court: The Affair .................................. 214 Stephanas and Gaius .......................................... 219 Aquila and Prisca ............................................ 224
vi
Phoebe the Patroness .......................................... 226 Divorce in 1 Cor. 7:1-16 ....................................... 230 Head-coverings and Status, Wealth, and Power ...................... 235 Silence in Worship: 1 Cor. 14:33b-5 .............................. 242 Summary of Conclusions ........................................... 244 CHAPTER 5: PATRONAGE AND PHILOSOPHICALLY EDUCATED WOMEN .. 247 Philosophical Patronage............................................ 249 Patronage in 1 Corinthians .......................................... 255 Junia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora ................................ 259 Pleasing the Patroness: Literary Patronage as Pattern ...................... 265 The Poet and the Apostle ........................................... 267 Horace: A Client like Paul .......................................... 271 The Patrons Speak ................................................ 280 Expectations and Disappointments ................................... 286 Reading 1 Corinthians 1-4 with Sophia and Fortuna ...................... 294 Reading 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5 with Sophia .............................. 302 Reading 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5 with Fortuna ............................. 308 Reading 1 Cor. 2:6-3:4 with Sophia ............................... 312 Reading 1 Cor. 2:6-3:4 with Fortuna.............................. 315 Reading 1 Cor. 3:5-4:5 with Sophia ............................... 316 Reading 1 Cor. 3:4-4:5 with Fortuna.............................. 324 Reading 1 Cor. 4:6-21 with Sophia ............................... 325 Reading 1 Cor. 4:6-21 with Fortuna ............................... 328 Conclusion: Reading 1 Corinthians 1-4 with Sophia and Fortina............. 330 CHAPTER 6: MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND WORSHIP IN 1 CORINTHIANS ..... 331
vii
Marriage and Family in the Popular Philosophers ........................ 332 The Pythagoreans and neo-Pythagoreans ........................... 332 Epicureans and Marriage ....................................... 337 Cynics and Marriage.......................................... 340 The Stoics and Marriage ....................................... 340 Plutarch, the “Middle Platonist” ................................. 341 Paul and Marriage ................................................ 351 How not to do Marriage: Improper Union with the Step-mother (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and Prostitutes (6:12-16)....................................... 351 Paul’s Regulations for Marriage: 1 Cor. 7:1-40...................... 354 Paul’s Regulations in Worship: 1 Cor. 11:1-17 ...................... 356 Sophia and Fortuna on Marriage ..................................... 356 Reading 1 Cor. 5:1-5 and 6:12-16 with Sophia ...................... 357 Reading 1 Cor. 5:1-5 and 6:12-16 with Fortuna ...................... 359 Reading Regulations for Marriage in 1 Cor. 7:1-40 with Sophia ......... 360 Reading Regulations for Marriage in 1 Cor. 7:1-40 with Fortuna ......... 364 Reading Regulations for Worship in 1 Cor. 11:1-17 with Sophia ......... 366 Reading Regulations for Worship in 1 Cor. 11:1-17 with Fortuna ........ 368 Conclusion: Reading Paul on Marriage with Sophia and Fortuna ............. 369 CHAPTER 7: SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN PAUL AND THE POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS ................................................. 372 Setting up the agon motif: 1 Corinthians 9:1-23 .......................... 374 Self-sufficiency in Popular Philosophy ................................ 376 Philosophical Traditions of the agon motif ............................. 390 Sophia and the Philosophical Tradition ............................ 392 Fortuna and the Philosophical Tradition ........................... 393
viii
The agon motif and Female Athletes in the Greek East .................... 395 Reading 1 Cor. 9:24-27 with Sophia .............................. 400 Reading 1 Cor. 9:24-27 with Fortuna .............................. 401 Conclusion: Reading the agon motif with Sophia and Fortuna ............... 402 CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ............................ 403 Reading 1 Corinthians with Sophia and Fortuna ......................... 404 Suggestions for Further Research .................................... 406 WORKS CITED ..................................................... 408
ix
CHAPTER 1: A HISTORY OF RESEARCH
Paul exists in at least three worlds and interacts with three rich, overlapping heritages: Judaisms,1 Hellenisms,2 and Roman Empire.3 The “new perspective(s) on Paul” redefined the relationship of Paul’s theology within first century Judaism(s) and therefore questioned the former understandings of justification by faith as the center of Pauline theology. 4 E. P. Sanders initiated a “Copernican turn” in Pauline scholarship by reviewing a wide variety of Palestinian Jewish literature and arguing for a pattern of 1
Gabriele Boccaccini, “Multiple Judaisms: A New Understanding of the Context of Earliest Christianity,” BR 11, no 1 (1995): 46; Jacob Nuesner, “The Four Approaches to the Description of Ancient Judaism(s): Nominalist, Harmonistic, Theological, and Historical,” in Judaism in Antiquity. Volume Four. Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World to Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity, ed. A. Avery-Peck and J. Nuesner (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 1-34. 2
See the essays in part one of The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies, ed. G. R. Boys-Stones, Barbara Graziosi, and Phiroze Vasunia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3-182. 3
Richard H. Horsley, ed., Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harissburg: Trinity, 1997); Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000) Horsely, ed., Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004); Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Art of Resistence: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Davina C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008); Joseph A. Marchal, The Politics of Heaven: Women, Gender, and Empire in the Study of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008); Neil Elliot, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005); Elliot, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010). 4
James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008).
1
2 Jewish religion comprising “covenantal nomism.”5 The sharpest criticism of Sanders came from Jacob Neusner, who demonstrated that Sanders’s use of rabbinic material is fundamentally flawed due to his neglect of rabbinic exegesis and the late date of these materials. Neusner also points out that Sanders’s definitions of the Pharisees are incorrect, and one cannot speak of a singular “Judaism” of the first century, given that there is no single unifying tradition.6 N. T. Wright7 and James Dunn8 became the most distinguished proponents and refiners of Sanders’s theories, and the “new perspective(s) on Paul” generated a vast 5
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patters of Religion (London: SCM, 1977); Sanders, “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” in Donum Gentilicum: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube,ed. C.K. Barrett, E. Bammel and W.D. Davies (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1978): 103-26; Sanders, “Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People,” USQR 33 (1978): 175-87; Sanders, Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); most recently “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism” in St. Paul Among the Philosophers, ed. John D. Caputo and Linda Martin Alcoff (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 74-90. 6
Jacob Neusner, “Comparing Judaisms,” HR 18 (1978-79): 177-91; Neusner, “The Use of Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of Paul,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. W. S. Green (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 2:43-63; Neusner, “Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah,” SJT 44 (1991): 73-95; Neusner, Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); Neusner, “E. P. Sanders Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People,” in Ancient Judaism: Debates and Disputes (Brown Judaic Studies 64; Chico, CA: Scholars Press Press, 1994); Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton, In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007). 7
N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynBul 29 (1978): 61-8; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992); Wright, “Gospel and Theology in Galatians,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, ed. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, JSNTSupp 108; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 222–239; Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” in Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 30–67; Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: the
3 amount of literature: scholarly, polemical, and apologetic. 9 The ongoing debate has centered on the nature and construction of Paul’s theology including his understanding of law and justification primarily in Romans and Galatians, but also the remainder of the Pauline corpus.10 Many Christian scholars and theologians continue to expose both real and perceived exegetical and theological weaknesses in the “new perspective(s) on Paul,” opting for confessional Catholic, Calvinistic, or Lutheran understandings of Pauline Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. S. K. Soderlund & N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 26–35; Wright, “The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, ed. Joel B. Green & Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 205–36; Wright, “Redemption from the New Perspective,” in Redemption, ed. S.T. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 69100; Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009). 8
James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95-122; Dunn, “Did Paul have a covenant theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” in Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline De-Roo, JSJSupp 71 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287-307. 9
For bibliography and review of scholarship on the New Perspective, see Dennis M. Swanson, “Bibliography of works on the New Perspective on Paul,” MSJ 16, no. 2 (2005): 317-24; Don B. Garlington, “The New Perspective on Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades Later,” CTR 2, no. 2 (2005): 17-38; Jay E. Smith, “The New Perspective on Paul: A Select and Annotated Bibliography,” CTR 2, no. 2 (2005): 91-111; Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002); James A. Meek, “The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction for the Uninitiated,” CJ 27, no. 3 (2001): 208-33. 10
Frank J. Matera, Galatians, Sacra Pagina, vol. 9 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992); Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994); James D. G. Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament Commentary, vol. 9 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995); Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988); Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988); Robert Keith Rapa, The Meaning of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians and Romans, SBL 31 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001); Peter Stuhlmacher and Donald Alfred Hagner, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001); Robert J. Karris, Galatians and Romans (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005).
4 theology and exegesis. 11 Scholars representing the “new perspective(s) on Paul” have consistently argued that we should seek to understand Paul not through later confessions but through his first century contexts, particularly in light of their reconstructions of the relationships between Paul and Judaism(s). Other scholars have argued against the “new perspective(s) on Paul” on historical, exegetical, and theological grounds. 12 With the discussion of Paul’s Jewish contexts in full force, it has become a methodological concern to broaden the horizons on Pauline studies to include his imperial and Hellenistic contexts. Significant changes in understanding brought about a new perspective on the construction of Paul and his contexts. The questions concerning Paul’s use of Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions and epistolary form, moral philosophy, and his interaction with the Roman Empire (including Hellenistic religions, patronage, family structures, and politics) needed to be revisited in light of these “new perspective(s) on Paul” debates. Many scholars sought to view Paul as subversive to the 11
Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity), 1994; Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998); Mark A. Elliot, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Peter Stuhlmacher and Donald Alfred Hagner, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001); Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) ; Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response (P & R Publishing, 2004); Chris Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009). 12
Note reviews and criticisms in Andrew A. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001); Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003); Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise (New York: Peter Lang, 2009).
5 Roman imperial order, criticizing its politics, economics, and family structures. John Elliot’s works on social-science criticism13 and Richard Horsley’s Paul and Empire14 sparked interest specifically in how Paul accepts, rejects, or adapts contemporary Roman political ideologies and especially how Christians can use Paul’s political ideas today. The work of scholars who use social-scientific methods to study the NT usually attempts to frame Paul’s viewpoints within Mediterranean social and anthropological frameworks (such as patronage, honor/ shame, family structures, magic and ritual). These valuable studies often focus on reading Paul with a concern for applying his thought to contemporary ideologies such as feminism, social and economic justice, libertarianism, and sexual equality. 15 Others have sought to foreground Hellenistic contexts and locate Paul primarily in these milieus employing historical methods such as philology, rhetorical criticism, and the situating of Paul within popular moral philosophy. Scholars who study Paul’s ideas only within his Jewish and Imperial contexts run the risk of obscuring his place within rhetorical, literary, philosophical and political conventions, and within greater Hellenistic culture. Studies of Paul’s use of Greco-Roman rhetoric and philosophy have spanned all the major movements in Pauline studies – from the writings of Justin Martyr and the 13
John H. Elliot, A Home for The Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortess Press, 1981); Elliot, What is SocialScientific Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). 14 15
See above, n. 3.
The Context Group has many significant contributors to this field of study. A regularly updated bibliography of their works are available on their website http://www.contextgroup.org, accessed Feb 6, 2012; cf., Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, ed. Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002).
6 apologists to Augustine to the Reformers to Bultmann, through the New Perspective to feminist and post-colonial studies. 16 The greatest achievements of modern rhetorical criticism, which began in earnest in the 1960s, comprise the analyses of Paul’s epistles as speeches and the identification of various rhetorical devices using ancient rhetorical handbooks and instructions from philosophers, rhetoricians, and other ancient witnesses concerning the art of persuasion. 17 Paul’s usage of the diatribe has received the most attention,18 but rhetorical critics have scrutinized the New Testament using rhetorical 16
For the church fathers see David Ivan Rankin, From Clement to Origen: the Social and Historical Context of the Fhurch Fathers (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006); for Augustine see Watson, Rhetorical Criticism, 101-2; the Reformers, see Classen, “St. Paul’s Epistles,” 11; Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynischstoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910); for feminist studies and rhetoric see Elizabeth Schüsseler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 83-102; Kathy Ehrensperger, That We may be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2004); Kwok Pui-lan, “Making the Connections: Post Colonial Studies and Feminist Biblical Interpretation,” in The PostColonial Biblical Reader, ed. R. S. Sugitharajah (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 45-65; cf., R. Dean Anderson, Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, 2nd ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 1999); ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe, Paul and Rhetoric (London: T&T Clarke, 2010). 17
For example, G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963); Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972); Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul and Homer: Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century CE,” NovT 32, no. 1 (1990): 48-78; Stanley Stowers, ed., Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (Leiden: Brill, 1997); R. Dean Anderson, Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, ed. Tj. Baarda, A. van der Kooij, and A. S. van der Woude, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). 18
For history and bibliography, see Rudolf Bultmann, Der stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Göttingen: Vanderhoek, 1910); Abraham Malherbe, “MH ΓENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” HTR 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 231-40, note that page 236 is reprinted as it should have appeared in HTR 74, no. 1 as “Erratum: MH ΓENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul;” Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letters to the Romans (Chio: Scholars Press, 1981); Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe (New York: Peter Lang, 2004).
7 methods with both historical and contemporary interests.19 The challenges of rhetorical criticism concern identifying form20 (epistles are not speeches) and adopting a methodology21 (while there are ancient works that describe how to construct a speech, there are none that instruct us how to analyze a speech). Scholars have also contextualized Paul within popular Hellenistic moral philosophy and religion, and it is within this scholarly tradition that I situate my study of the reception of 1 Corinthians by philosophically educated women. I will review the scholarly tradition, beginning with the contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum, 22 the publications of the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of the 19
For bibliography, see Duane Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles since 1975,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 3 (1995): 232-34; Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2006). 20
Henrey G. Meecham, Light from Ancient Letters (London: Allen & Unwin, 1923); Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); John White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); Abraham Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); M. Luther Stirewalt, Jr. Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writers: Composition, Secretaries and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004); ed. Stanley K. Stowers and Sean A. Adams, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, Pauline Studies (Past) 6 (Brill: Leiden, 2009). 21
See, for example, the methodological reflections in Stanley E. Porter, ed., The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, NovTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999): Thomas Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique,” 108-24; Duane F. Watson, “The Contributions and Limitations of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory for Constructing the Rhetorical and Historical Situations of a Pauline Epistle,” 123-51; and Stanley Porter, “Paul as an Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” 222-48. 22
The Corpus Hellenisticum is an international research project whose objective is to collect all of the parallels to the New Testament that appear in Greek and Latin literature. W. C. Van Unnik cryptically wrote, “So for the past few years here in Utrecht we have again taken up the thread of this work (that of Wettstein and others discussed below),” “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti,” JBL 83, no. 1 (1964): 18.
8 SBL, and related conversations regarding Greco-Roman moral philosophy and Paul. Finally, I will situate my study in the current conversation regarding the participation of women in philosophy.
Paul within the Corpus Hellenisticum The systematic collection of Greco-Roman writings for the interpretation of early Christian writings begins with the work of J. J. Wettstein, who collected parallels from Jewish and classical writers for forty years.23 Following decades of disinterest, the search for parallels was renewed in the nineteenth century by C. F. Georg Heinrici (1844-1915), Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934), Hans Windish (1881-1935), Adolf Deissmann (18661937), and Hans Lietzmann (1875-1942), who influenced NT scholarship concerning the nature of early Christianity and its relationships with Judaism and Hellenism. Heinrici argued that Paul’s concept of self-awareness has its roots (oi0kei/wsij / appetitus societatis) in Socratic, Stoic, and Philonic thought, that early Christian groups resemble Roman associations, and that Paul used the form of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe.24 Ernst von Dobschütz was critical of the methods of the history of religions school that emphasized the similarities of Christianity with Greco-Roman thought and sought to bring out its
23
Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum mss., edition aliarum, versionum, et patrum nec non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis historiam et vim verborum illustrante, ed. Joannis Jacobi Wetsteni (Amstelaedami: Ex Officina Dommeriana, 1751-2). 24
Georg Heinrici, “Die christengemeinden Koinths und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen,” ZNT 19 (1876): 465-509; Kieran J. O’Mahony interacts with Heinrici’s understanding of rhetoric at length in Pauline Persuasion: A Sounding in 2 Corinthians 8-9 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000).
9 distinctiveness, arguing that Paul goes beyond the requirements of popular Hellenistic morality.25 Windisch is best known for his argument concerning the qei=oj a0nhr: by providing examples from classical writers, he extended the nature of its usage in John’s Gospel for Jesus to how Paul describes himself. 26 Windisch further postulated that Paul’s opponents in Corinth are gnostic pneumatics and Jewish preachers.27 Deissmann famously concluded that the Greek of the NT is that of the lower classes, defined Paul’s corpus as letters (non-literary, real communications to real people) instead of epistles (moral essays in the form of a letter), and argued that Pauline Christianity was a movement exclusively of the lower class.28
Lietzmann argued that Paul’s opponents
simply adopted the Platonic anthropology of the immortality of the soul and therefore rejected Paul’s teachings concerning the resurrection.29 These scholars made important contributions to what would later become the Corpus Hellenisticum project and to related studies. Death and war continually interrupted the project until Kurt Aland suggested in
25
Ernst von Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1904), 1-10. 26
Windisch, Paulus und Christus: Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher Verglich UNT 24 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1934), 143. 27
Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 9th ed, KEK (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1924, 1970). 28
A. Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the Hisory of Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primative Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901); Diessmann, Light from the ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911). 29
Hans Lietzmann and W. G. Kümmel, An Die Korinther 1/2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969), 9.
10 his review of the project in 1955 that an international team of scholars systematically review the Corpus Hellenisticum.30 The first publication of the Corpus Hellenisticum preceded Alland’s call by nine years, appearing in 1946. Helge Almqvist’s Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti begins with a detailed outline of the shared culture of Plutarch and the writers of the NT.31 Almqvist selected the parallels himself (instead of simply reviewing Wettstein’s collection) according to the following categories: those which show cultural-historical reference, those which throw light on religion, on ethics, those which belong to the area of literary style - further subdivided into style of narration, diatribe or dialogue, minor features of rhetorical emphasis, phrases or turns of expression, and major figures of speech. 32 For example, Almqvist finds a parallel with the cosmology of Plutarch (Mor. 282b) and Paul (Rom. 1:20), both referring to the seen and unseen nature of elements in the cosmos. He also identifies a parallel between Paul (Rom. 2:1) and Plutarch’s (Mor. 863a) ethical rule not to judge others. Elements of the diatribe occur throughout; one example being Rom 9:19 that parallels Mor. 101c, 958e, and 1055a. Hans D. Betz made his first contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum in 1961 with his revised dissertation, which briefly identifies parallels of a religious nature between the 30
Kurt Aland, “The Corpus Hellenisticum,” NTS 2 (1955-6): 217-21.
31
Helge Almqvist, Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Uppsala: Appelbergs, 1946), 18-29. 32
Mary E. Andrews, review of Helge Almqvist, Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, JBL 66, no. 3 (1947): 343; cf., Martin Rist also notes Almqvist’s historical sensitivity, review of Helge Almqvist, Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, JBL 66, no. 3 (1947): 301-2.
11 NT and Lucian.33 He gives much attention to the qei=ov a0ner, the strongest parallels being in Lucian’s description of Heracles in Cynic 13 and the Death of Peregrinus 6.34 Lucian describes Heracles as the divine man, one who had self-control and helped the poor, and he laments Peregrinus not as the loss of a Pythagoras or a Socrates, but as a god who had had died. 35 The first methodological essay and very detailed history of the project in English appears in 1964 by W. C. Van Unnik.36 Van Unnik calls for a systematic and historical/scientific review of all Greek and Latin literature, noting that Wettstein’s vast collection in his Novum Testamentum Graecum is incomplete and arbitrary, necessitating original research. Van Unnik gives particular attention to the problem of defining and identifying parallels. He writes that scholars must not look for parallels only in the contemporaries of Paul because many formative writers and philosophers shaped the
33
Hans D. Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paranetische Parallelen. Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), 102, 125; cf., G. J. M. Bartelink, “Review,” Mnemosyne 4th ser. 16, no. 2 (1963); William R. Schoedel, “Review” JBL 84, no. 3 (1965): 318-321; for more on the divine man, see Betz, “Göttmensch (II),” RAC 12 (1982): 234-312. 34
Cf., Hans Dieter Betz, “Lukian von Samosata und das Christentum,” NovT 3, no. 3 (1959). 35
For the problematic scholarly discussion on the divine man, see Jaap-Jan Flinterman, “Review: The Umbiquitous ‘Divine Man’,” Numen 43, no. 1 (1996): 82-98; Hans Dieter Betz, “The Divine Human Being,” HTR 78, no. 3/4 (1985): 243-52. 36
W. C. Van Unnik, “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti,” JBL 30, no. 1 (1964): 17-33. Van Unnik mentions the methodology of A. Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament (Töpelmann: Giessen, 1911) and J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (Leiden: Brill, 1962) but these works are outside of the CH. Cf., Van Unnik, “Second Report on the Corpus Hellenisticum,” NTS 3, no. 3 (1957): 254-259.
12 contemporary ethos, and later writers preserve this material as well. The evaluations should be done with an historical outlook: Of course in the evaluation of data one must reckon with the fluctuations and currents in the religious, social, and political realms, but in general it must be stated that everything preserved to us from the classical world ought to be investigated for its eventual contribution to this Corpus.37 Furthermore, a “parallel” need not be the usage of a particular word or its cognates and various forms, 38 because a parallel idea can be expressed with different words (and in different languages). However, a supposed parallel is stronger with more exact word order, form, and historical situation. Van Unnik later describes this strength: “there must be a relation in substance with the N.T.”39 This “relation in substance” means applying a hermeneutic to both passages that comprises “reading in ‘context,’ which is not only the immediate passage from which the words are taken, but also the whole fabric of thought.”40 Following Van Unnik’s call for methodological reflection, several volumes in the monograph series Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti reflect deeply on the relationships between classical sources and Paul. G. Petzke made the first contribution, 37
Van Unnik, “Corpus Hellenisticum,” 28.
38
This project had already been done in the work of the BGAD and TDNT.
39
W. C. Van Unnik, “Words Come to Life: The Work for the ‘Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti’,” NovT 13.3 (1971): 203. Unnik provides several examples. Regrettably, Van Unnik writes, “It is not possible to give a clear-cut definition of a parallel,” 206. Some ‘parallels’ are just lexical, some have cultural value, and it is the judgment of the interpreter that determines the significance of the ‘parallel.’ See also the use of this method in Van Unnik “‘Den Geist loschet nicht aus’ (I Thessalonicher V 19),” NovT 10, no. 4 (1968): 255-269; Van Unnick, “‘Tiefer Friede’ (1. Klemens 2,2)” VC 24, no. 4 (1970): 261-279. 40
Van Unnik, “Words Come to Life,” 206.
13 writing on Apollonius of Tyana. Petzke’s work includes scant parallels to Paul’s writings, being more concerned with stories concerning Jesus and Apollonius and the “divine man” concept in Hellenism. 41 Reimer criticized Petzke for not offering much interpretation of the significance of the data,42 but Petzke’s arguments concerning the contact between Jesus as the Son of God and the “divine man” in Hellenistic traditions remain convincing. In the second volume of the Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, G. Mussies in Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament briefly introduces Dio and then presents parallels with little or no comment, although his notes give a rationale for the identification of a parallel when present. Mussies’s focus is to provide parallels of a religious or philosophical nature, and leave out lexical or grammatical notes. Despite Unnik’s call for a more substantive discussion of the parallels, Mussies does not give explanation and interpretation of his parallels, claiming that the parallels themselves need to be a part of scholarly discourse. The number of parallels in this volume is quite massive, and a detailed interpretation of each parallel would call for a multi-volume work with several contributing scholars. Among various parallels, Mussies finds parallels in 1 Cor 1:22 and Cass. Dio 11.39, where Dio says that the Greeks are leaders seeking philosophy and educating their people, and in 37.26 where Favorinus lauds the Corinthians specifically for their learning and other important accomplishments.
41
David L. Tiede, review of Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament by G. Petzke, JBL 90, no. 3 (1973): 465-7. 42
Andy M. Reimer, Miracle and Magic: A Study in the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (London: Sheffield University Press, 2002), 17.
14 Elsewhere Dio says that to win a war, soldiers must be saved but at the same time good men have to die, which is similar to what Paul says in Romans 5:7. The third volume, Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, comprising ten different essays on various treatises in the Moralia, broke new ground in 1975 with its ambitious scope. Many of the parallels found in this work are important for highlighting the significance of philosophical terms in Paul’s writings, but with the notable exceptions of Morton Smith and David Aune, the contributors do little to elaborate on these themes.43 Morton Smith finds similarity between the knowledge of God and lack of it in Mor. 164e and Gal. 4:8-9; 1 Cor. 8:2, 15:34; but Paul differs from Plutarch in that he believed pagan belief leads to destruction (2 Thess. 2.2-12).44 David Aune focuses on the diatribe style of Paul and its use in 1 Cor. 15:29-34, noting the extensive use of poets and sages in Plutarch’s treatise and Paul’s quotation of Menander in 1 Cor. 15:33. Aune further argues that both Paul and the early Christian writers who favored the diatribe style used quotations from the Old Testament instead of the appeals to the sages and poets in the Cynic-Stoic diatribe. 45 Volume 4, Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, followed in 1978, finally adding substantial discourse with wider scholarship, as the contributors
43
Cf. Edward O’Neil, review of Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. H. D. Betz, JBL 94, no. 4 (1975), 631-633. 44
Assuming, of course, Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Morton Smith, “De Superstitione,” in Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 8. 45
David E. Aune, “De esu carnium orationes I and II (Moralia 993a-999b),” in Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 305.
15 included classicists, historians, and NT interpreters.46 The articles in this volume include detailed descriptions of parallels between several essays in the Moralia and early Christian thought followed by a list of less important parallels with little or no explanation. As a whole, it appreciates the methodological concerns raised by Van Unnik, describing substantive parallels in an historical background. Volume five appeared in 1979 being Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature, a revised dissertation by W. C. Grese directed by H. D. Betz.47 Corpus Hermeticum XIII is unique in Hermetic literature because it focuses on regeneration, the change from humanity to divinity. Dated between the middle of the second century to late third century CE, Corpus Hermeticum XIII possibly carries both Jewish and Christian influences. Grese provides a detailed analysis of Corpus Hermeticum XIII, noting many parallels to Paul. Interestingly, there are two negative parallels: the early Christian communities were open to outsiders (unlike the Hermetic mysteries) and the transition from human to divine (e.g., Jesus) was not as smooth as in Corpus Hermeticum XIII.48 Paul’s use of the term “father” is similar to the widespread use of “father – son” terminology used to indicate a teacher/student relationship and used
46
Vernon Robbins, review of Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. H. D. Betz, JAAR 47, no. 4 (1979), 666; Abraham Malherbe, review of Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. H. D. Betz, JBL 100, no. 1 (1981): 140-142. 47
William R. Schoedel reviews volumes 3, 4, and 5 in “Review: Three Recent Works on Patristics and Early Christian Literature,” HR 20, no. 2 (1981): 345-6. 48
Grese, Corpus Hermeticum, 64-5.
16 in mystery religions for the initiator/initiated.49 Grese observes that in both CH XIII and Pauline thought, regeneration occurs through God’s initiative.50 P. W. Van Der Horst contributed volume six with Aelius Aristides and the New Testament in 1980.51 Van Der Horst very briefly introduces Aristides and lists parallels between the writings of Aristides and various NT writings. In his opinion the most significant parallels to Paul are in the hymn to Athena and 1 Cor. 1.24. Aristides (37, 28) calls Athena du/namin tou= Dio/j and Paul says of Christ: Xriston qeou= du/namin. Aristides (50, 71-93) describes in some length letters of recommendation (2 Cor. 3:1; Philemon). Van Der Horst finds parallels between 1 Cor. 1.22 “the Greeks seek wisdom” and with the Athenians “being leaders of all education and learning” in Arist. 330; and between the crown metaphor of the agon motif (1 Cor. 9:25) and Arist. 402. In their 1971 article “Contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: I: plutarch, de e apud delphos,” Hans D. Betz and Edgar Smith outline many parallels between Plutarch and 1 Corinthians.52 The entire discourse concerns gnw=qi sauto/n 49
Grese, Corpus Hermeticum, 67. Cf., CH XIII 1.1; 1 Cor. 4:14, 15, 17; 2 Cor.
6:13. 50
Grese, 84. CH XIII 3.1.7-3.1.8.3.2; Rom. 8:29-30; 9:6-29; Gal. 1:15-6; 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13-4. 51
See the very useful contributions in John Turner, review of Aelius Aristides and the New Testament by P. W. Van Der Horst, JAAR 48, no. 1 (1980): 116-117 and David Aune, review of Aelius Aristides and the New Testament by P. W. Van Der Horst, JBL 99, no. 4 (1980): 641-644; David Aune, review of “Aelius Aristides and the New Testament by P. W. Van Der Horst, JBL 102, no. 2 (1983): 349-350. 52
Hans D. Betz and Edgar W. Smith, Jr., “Contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: I: Plutarch, de e apud delphos,” NovT 13, no. 3 (1971): 217-35. The most significant parallels from 384e to 1 Corinthians include the contrast of ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ gifts in 1 Cor. 9:11; the combination of lo/gov and sofi/a in 1:17; the metaphorical use of a0parxh/, the technical term for sacrificial cults in 1 Cor.
17 (know thyself) which Betz and Smith interpret in light of its companion maxim mhden a1gan (in nothing to excess).53 For example, in 385d the phrase gnw=qi sauto/n appears, which has a parallel in 1 Cor. 3:4, with Betz and Smith writing of mhden a1gan: The maxim is not expressly reflected in [Early Christian Literature]. However, cf. Ro xii 3; 2 Cor x.I2f; Eph iv 7, 13, i6. In the Pauline tradition there is a clear opposition to any tendency by man to overextend himself, e.g., Paul’s opposition to the qei=oj a0nh/r of Christianity, and to the gnostics (I Cor iv 8; 2 Cor xii I-4, 7).54 Peter Van Der Horst’s essays on the neo-Platonist Macrobius (1973) and the Stoic philosophers Musonius Rufus (1974), Hierocles (1975),55 Cornutus (1981), and the novelist Chariton (1983) provide a list of parallels and briefly introduce the authors but do not offer extensive discussion. 56 Like other contributors to the Corpus Hellenisticum, Van Der Horst finds substantial parallels between Paul and these ancient authors. 15:20, 23 and 16:15; and the usage of a0pori/ai in 1 Cor. 7:32-5. Equally significant are the parallels in Plutarch’s theology in 384; Paul’s use o1recij in Rom. 1:27 and fu/sei in Rom. 1:27; 2:14, 27; 11.21, 24; and Gal. 2:15. From 385a, ai0ni/gmata “riddle” appears only in ECL in 1 Cor. 13:12, where it has to do with revelation. 53
Cf., Hans Dieter Betz, “The Delphic Maxim ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΑΥΤΟΝ in Hermetic Interpretation,” HTR 63, no. 4 (1970): 465-84; Hans Dieter Betz, “The Delphic Maxim “Know Yourself” in the Greek Magical Papyri,” HR 21, no. 2 (1981): 156-71. 54
Betz and Smith, “Plutarch,” 223.
55
Cf., Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts (Atlanta: SBL, 2009). 56
P. W. Van Der Horst, “Macrobius and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum,” NovT 15, no. 3 (1973): 220-232; Van Der Horst, “Musonius Rufus and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum,” NovT 16, no. 4 (1974): 306-315; Van Der Horst, “Hierocles the Stoic and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum,” NovT 17, no. 2 (975): 156-60; Van Der Horst, “Cornutus and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum,” NovT 23, no. 2 (1981): 165-72; Van Der Horst, “Chariton and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novum Testamentum,” 25, no. 4 (1983): 348355. Macrobius notes in Commentary 1.1.5-6 that Plato argued in Pheado and Georgias that there is divine justice, which can be parallel to Rom. 2:6.
18 Macrobius, for example, notes in Commentary 1.1.5-6 that Plato argued in Phaedo and Georgias that there is divine justice, which can be parallel to Rom. 2:6. There is a parallel in Rom. 8:14 and Macrobius’s comment in Saturnalia 1.23.13 that the spirit of the god led men bearing the images of the gods in the procession to the Circensian Games. Paul’s description of his pursuance of Christ in 1 Cor. 2:2 is parallel to Macrobius’s description of the wise man who seeks wisdom in Commentary 1.8.3. And 1 Cor. 7:4; 32-4 is also similar to Musonius’s essay on the “Chief End of Marriage,” when he explains that a marriage must have mutual love between husband and wife. 57 Both Hierocles and Paul agree that man exists in the image of god (1 Cor. 11:7 // Stob. 4.25.23). Cornutus (Corn. 20 p. 39, 15) has the phrase touj … prw/touj e0k gh=j genome/nouj a0nqrwpouj, similar to Paul’s o0 prw=toj a1nqrwpoj e0k gh=j (1 Cor. 15:47). Van Der Horst suggests that Dionysus’s presence in his absence in Char. 8.4-5 is parallel to 1 Cor. 5:3. Furthermore, God’s mercy in Phil. 2:27 is comparable to the mercy of Aphrodite in Char. 8.1.3. The phrase mhdeij e0auton e0capata/tw has parallel in Char. 6.1.10: mh e0capa/ta seauto/n. David L. Balch contributed an article to the Corpus Hellenisticum in 1992 that begins with an excellent introduction to Pythagoreanism and neo-Pythagoreanism. Balch
57
Lutz, 89. Furthermore, Musonius and Paul agree that men’s hair should be cut short. Musonius actually uses the beauty of women in cutting their hair as an example for men; however, unlike Paul, Musonius applies the argument from nature to men and not women. Other parallels are Musonius’s notion of self-control of an ideal king and Paul’s sense of order in worship and Musonius’s treatment of the question of the wiseperson persecuting those who treat her with contempt and Paul’s fighting the wild beasts in Ephesus. Paul’s appeal to nature in 1 Cor. 11:14 is parallel to Hierocles (pg 15 col 2, 51). A fragment of Heirocles (Stob. 4.27.20) parallels Paul’s command not to repay evil with evil in Rom 12:17.
19 translates and interprets many neo-Pythagorean texts that reference household codes.58 Balch finds neo-Pythagorean parallels to the Pauline idea that wives should submit to their husbands.59 Significantly, Balch concludes that the neo-Pythagorean household codes are more similar to the NT codes in Colossians 3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:21-6:9 than are the Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish parallels that NT scholars usually cite. 60 The scope and depth of the two volumes of the Neuen Wettstein, first published in 1996 and edited by Udo Schnelle, update and revise the parallels that Wettstein collected. The first volume appears in two parts: the first covering the epistles of the NT in canonical order to 1 Tim., and the second covering the remainder of the epistles and the Apocalypse. The second volume is dedicated to the Gospel of John. Matthew and Acts are planned, but the publication date has not been announced. The parallels in the Neuen Wettstein are chosen primarily on the similarity in style, and include Hellenistic, Jewish
58
David Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes,” ANRW II.26.1 (New York: W. de Gruyter, 1972): 380-411; “Household Ethical Codes in Peripatetic, Neopythagorean, and Early Christian Literature,” in SBLSP 11 (1977): 397-404; E. W. Smith, Jr.’s dissertation did not make it into the series, Joseph and Asenath and Early Christian Literature: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California, 1974). I presume that this contribution was not published because it is incomplete, covering only the first two parts of Joseph and Asenath. Smith provides an excellent introduction to Joseph and Asenath and follows with parallels that focus on religion and literary phenomena. 59
Balch presents parallels between 1 Cor. 14:34 and Iamblichus 29, 26-30, 5; Perictione, De mul. harm. 144, 8-18; cf. Callicratidas, De. dom. felic. 107, 11. Balch’s citiation of Perictione and Callicratidas is from Holger Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Abo, Abo Akademi, 1965). Iamblichus is cited from Iamblichi De vita Pythagorica liber, ed. Ludwig Deubner and Ulrich Klein (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1975). 60
Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists,” 409.
20 (both Greek and Hebrew), and early Christian texts. The parallels appear in German with a few notes on their significance with relevant Greek phrases. While the Neuen Wettstein was being compiled and edited, Klaus Berger and Carsten Colpe were working with Eugene M. Boring to translate and update a similar project, the Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Neuen Testament.61 The Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament added about 300 parallels to the original work, and unlike the Neuen Wettstein, this project focused on locating and briefly explaining parallels to the NT that are from Greco-Roman literature rather than early Christian or Jewish literature, with an interest in cultural backgrounds (usually focused on religious and philosophical ideas) instead of style. The NT text and Greco-Roman parallels appear in English, almost exclusively by translations cited in the bibliography, with very brief explanations of the significance of the parallel and relevant untranslated Greek. By their nature, both the Neuen Wettstein and the Hellenistic Commentary of the New Testament are incomplete and somewhat arbitrary because both works almost never situate parallels within their own literary and historical contexts. Similar phrases from the author of a parallel are almost never referenced, and parallels from other GrecoRoman authors are not presented. A significant point of the Hellenistic Commentary of the New Testament project is to demonstrate that the NT writings do not appear in a vacuum, but the parallels themselves are not set within any kind of framework other than the criteria used to select them. This leaves a wide gap for scholars to locate other 61
Klaus Berger and Carsten Colpe, Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987); Eugene M. Boring, Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995).
21 parallels in both the author that is cited in either work or in another author’s work that fits the same criteria. Therefore, there will be a need to continue to identify and review parallels to the New Testament and Greco-Roman literature with fresh research.62
Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity of the SBL Also concerned with the relationship between Paul and Hellenistic morality is the work produced by the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of the Society of Biblical Literature (HMPECS). This work has been particularly concerned with connections between moral philosophy and the Pauline communities. Abraham Malherbe and E. A. Judge played a significant role in developing this line of inquiry and mentored many of the contributors.63 Malherbe and Judge, 64 among others (such as
62
See the bibliography and discussion in Johan Thom, “‘To Show Difference by Comparison:’ The Neuen Wettstein and Cleanthes’ Hymn,” in Reading Religions in the Ancient World: Essays Presented to Robert McQueen Grant on his 90th Birthday, ed. David E. Aune and Robert Darling Young (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 81-100. Cf., Stanley Porter, ed., Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament (Boston: Brill, 2002). 63
For comprehensive bibliography see E. A. Judge, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays, ed. David M. Scholer (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008); Judge, The First Christians in the Roman World, ed. James R. Harrison (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Malherbe served as the Doktorvater for many students that published their dissertations in this field: Ronald Hock (1980), David Balch (1981), Stanley Stowers (1981), Benjamin Fiore (1986), and John Fitzgerald (1988). 64
E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960); Judge, “The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History,” JRH 11 (1980): 201-17; Judge, Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul (Christchurch, NZ: University of Cantebury, 1982); Judge, “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents,” TynBul 35 (1984). Abraham Malherbe, The World of the New Testament (Austin: Sweet, 1967); Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977); Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1977).
22 Helmut Koester, Hans D. Betz, and Wayne Meeks)65 laid the groundwork for the significant contemporary argument that the Christian community at Corinth was socially diverse and that Paul’s opponents there had beliefs that were not necessarily “gnostic.”66 The Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of the Society of Biblical Literature (HMPECS) has produced seven monographs most of which discuss friendship and patronage as important dynamics in Pauline communities. The group published its first collection of essays in 1996 on friendship and flattery in the ancient world, with another volume on friendship in 1997, both edited by John T. Fitzgerald.67 Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (1996) is a collection of essays that examines friendship from before Aristotle to such near contemporaries of Paul as Cicero, Plutarch, Lucian, the neo-Pythagoreans, Chariton, and Philo, as well as epigraphic evidence such 65
Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971); Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner Apologie 2 Korinther 10-13 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1972); Wayne Meeks, Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums: ausgew. Beiträge zum frühchristlichen Gemeinschaftsleben in seiner gesellschaftlichen Umwelt (München: Kaiser, 1979). 66
Contra Adolf Deissmann (1895, 1923) on one hand and Walter Schmithals (1956) on the other. Deismann had argued that Christianity was exclusively a movement of the lowest social class based on his review of newly discovered documentary papyri, and Schmithals had characterized Paul’s opponents as exclusively Gnostic. Cf., Deissmann, Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums (Marburg: Elwert, 1895); Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: Mohr, 1923); and Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth; eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). For history and bibliography of the problem of Paul’s opponents, see Stanley E. Porter, ed., Paul and his Opponents, SBL Pauline Studies 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 67
Fitzgerald, John T. Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, NovTSupp 82 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Fitzgerald, Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Atlanta: SBL, 1997).
23 as honorary inscriptions and documentary papyri. Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech (1997) follows an entirely different format, first presenting three essays that define friendship, frankness, and flattery principally in Philodemus and Plutarch. A detailed examination of friendship language in Phil. 4 follows, identifying this chapter as a friendship letter, the function of friendship language in Phil. 4:10-20, and specifically the significance of self-sufficiency in Phil. 4:11. The volume concludes with discussions concerning the usage of frank speech in the Pauline epistles, Acts, and the Johannine Corpus. In 1998, David Konstan led a team of contributors that produced the sourcebook Philodemus on Frank Criticism: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, which introduces a critical source that these contributors to the HMPECS regularly utilize when studying Epicureanism and ancient ideas concerning friendship.68 A volume of comparative studies in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe appeared in 2003, and revisits several issues related to previous work.69 The editors organized the essays according to graphos (semantics), ethos (ethics and moral characterization) , logos (rhetoric and literary expression), ethnos (self-definition and acculturation), and nomos (law and normative values).70 In their methodological essay, White and Fitzgerald
68
Fragment nine includes a reference to the female Epicurean philosopher Leontion without comment. David Konstan, Philodemus: On Frank Criticism (Atlanta: SBL, 1998); cf., David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 69
John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Micheal White, eds. Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 70
Thomas H. Olbricht, Preface to Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Micheal White (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3.
24 present a detailed history of Corpus Hellenisticum and the HMPECS, and review the criticisms from scholars that highlight the weaknesses of “parallels,” emphasizing instead the unique nature of the Christian message rather than its similarity to popular philosophy and other Hellenistic literature.71 Such criticisms have been theological, lexical, and methodological in nature.72 In response to these criticisms, White and Fitzgerald suggest the studies of parallels should critically engage debates concerning backgrounds and contexts. The backgrounds include studies on culture, social interactions, and history. The contexts include the focus on Hellenistic religions and Judaisms, philosophical and intellectual traditions (specifically Philo, Hellenistic moralists, and the Second Sophistic), and “social world” studies. A further volume, Philodemus in the New Testament World, appeared in 2004, with essays directed towards friendship and rhetoric.73 J. Paul Sampley argues that Paul uses frank speech according to the conventions set forth by Plutarch and Philodemus,
71
John T. Fitzgerald and Thomas H. Olbricht, “Quod est comparandum: The problem of Parallels,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Micheal White (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13-39. 72
See for example Floyd Filson, The New Testament Against its Environment (London: SCM, 1950); TDNT 1:vii; Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962); David Aune, “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C.H. Talbert’s What Is a Gospel?” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol 2, ed. David Wenham and R. T. France (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), 9; Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 7. 73
John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, Glenn S. Holland, eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World, NovTSupp 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
25 varying the degree of his frankness according to how he perceives the situation.74 Similarly, Bruce Winter argues that Paul denounces the rhetorical delivery (as described by Philodemus) of “megastar orators” in Corinth that distracted the Corinthian church. 75 While the volumes produced by the HMPECS are useful in identifying and interpreting Paul’s usage of friendship and patronage language, the conversation concerning contextualization of Paul within popular Hellenistic philosophy has a much wider scope.
Popular Hellenistic Philosophy and Paul There is much conversation on the relationship between Paul and the popular philosophies of the first century, and interest in this topic spans every generation of Pauline scholarship, from the earliest interpreters to today. These studies help to reconstruct the philosophical and rhetorical milieu of Paul and his audiences. These popular philosophies include Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Platonism, and neoPythagoreanism. It may not be immediately obvious why it is useful to compare Paul and philosophers beginning with figures which pre-date Paul by hundreds of years such as the
74
J. Paul Sampley, “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn S. Holland, NovTSupp 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 317. 75
Bruce Winter, “Philodemus and Paul on u9po/krisij” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, 340-1. The group also published a volume on Heraclitus that does not address Paul: Donald A. Russell and David Konstan, eds., Heraclitus: Homeric Problems, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 14 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005). The forthcoming work on Cornutus was unavailable to me at the time this dissertation was written. Cornutus: A Cursory Examination of the Traditions of Greek Theology (Theologiae Graecae Compendium), with Text, Translation, and Commentary, ed. David Armstrong, Pamela Gordon, Loveday Alexander and L. Michael White (forthcoming).
26 pre-Socratics, Pythagoras, Socrates, the Academy and other Greek schools, such as the Cynics, Stoics, and Epicureans. The popularity of these schools rose and fell in the course of history – and mostly were unpopular – until the rise of rhetoric and education in the first century BCE. These schools become especially important when NT scholars use writers such as Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca and other later witnesses to interpret Paul. The ancient writers most often used to interpret Paul knew not only Greek philosophies but also their Roman incarnations, poets, historians, and mythologies. When interpreting Paul in light of Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch, we are also interpreting Paul in light of the more ancient traditions that have influenced these writers. On this point, NT scholars have traced Paul’s usage of common elements of moral philosophies such as the household codes,76 the wise-person,77 suicide,78 the image of God,79 self-definition,80 divine inspiration,81 divorce and remarriage82 through the history
76
See the works of David Balch listed above; Malherbe “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992): 267-333. 77
Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 293-301.
78
Arthur J. Droge argues that Paul’s attitude towards life and death can be traced back through various schools of philosophy to Socrates: he is willing to commit a noble suicide if he must, but he would consider it a martyrdom “Mori Lucrum: Paul and Ancient Theories of Suicide,” NovT 30, no. 3 (1988): 263-86. 79
S. Vernon McCasland, “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul,” JBL 69, no. 2 (1950): 85-100. 80
Hans Dieter Betz, “Christianity as Religion: Paul’s Attempt at Definition in Romans,” JR 71, no. 3 (1991): 315-44. 81
Cf. Kathleen Freeman, “Plato: The Use of Inspiration,” G&R 49, no. 27 (1940): 137-49; Penelope Murray. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece,”JHS 101 (1981): 87-100. A very detailed discussion of the divine nature of poetry in Greek thought and its development in Roman thought is available in an article by Alice Sperduti, “The Divine Nature of Poetry in Antiquity,” TAPA 81 (1950): 209-40. A few notes are useful here.
27 of philosophy (from Paul’s contemporaries back to ancient schools) and examined the relationship of Paul’s views with several different schools. This process raises some very important questions: what did Paul know and how did he learn it? What about his audiences? If we determine that either Paul or his audiences were educated, what does this imply about their social status? Rhetorical critics generally assume that Paul and his audiences would have been aware of rhetorical conventions and popular moral philosophy due to the social contexts and conventions that they identify in his letters. Historians usually classify Greek and Latin education during the first century - at least for elite boys - as primary and secondary.83 Primary education would include basic grammar and the memorization of some definitive philosophical sentences and poetry. Secondary education would include a more advanced study of style, rhetoric, and important Greek and Latin traditions. 84 Stanley Stowers has suggested that “Paul’s Greek educational level roughly equals that of someone who had primary instruction with a grammaticus, or teacher of letters, and then Sperduti observes that Homer uses the same words (dioi=, qei=oi, diotrefee/j, and diogenee/j) to describe poets, seers, and kings: Il. 1.176; 2.196, 445; Od. 1.65, 196, 284; 2.27, 233, 394; 3.121; 4.17; 621, 691; 8.87, 539; 16.252; 17.359; 23.133; 143. “As the scepter of the king comes from Zeus and fillets are conferred upon holy men by Apollo, so, too, the words of the poets come from the gods,” Sperduti, “Divine Nature,” 209. 82
Shailer Mathews, “The Social Teaching of Paul. VII. The Family,” BW 2, no. 2 (1902): 123-33. 83
The availability of education to women is largely ignored and will be discussed
below. 84
Henri Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (London: Sheed & Ward, 1956); Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (London: Methuen, 1977). Education for elite women is less studied but reflected in ancient monuments, letters, and other literary sources that will be examined in detail in chapter two.
28 had studied letter writing and some rhetorical exercises.”85 However, other scholars have reviewed the same body of evidence and conclude on the basis of Paul’s extensive use of Greek philosophy and rhetoric that his education must be more extensive than Stowers suggests. Udo Schnelle, Ronald Hock, and Troels Engberg-Pederson have argued that Paul had a full Greek education.86 E. P. Sanders has most recently argued that Paul had an excellent education in the LXX, memorizing most of it at an early age, and a basic education in Greek language and the classics.87 The strongest argument for Paul’s education is his competent use of ancient rhetorical methods. However, Paul only quotes three fragments of Greek poets – which he may have learned without a Greek education – and instead he quotes traditions from Jewish heritage. Loveday Alexander argues that Paul cites the Greek poets and Jewish traditions in the manner taught on the secondary level. 88 At the same time, Paul’s grammar and style do not demonstrate more advanced knowledge in Greek. For this reason, I am skeptical that Paul received a full Greek education. It seems most likely to me that Paul memorized the LXX at an early age, was 85
Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 17. 86
Troels Engberg-Pederson, “Stoicism in Philippians,” in Paul in his Hellenistic Context, ed. Troels Engberg-Pederson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); Ronald Hock, “Paul and Greco-Roman Education,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley (New York: Trinity Press, 2003), 198; See also Udo Schnelle’s discussion of Paul’s background in Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 57-83. 87 88
Sanders, Between Judaism and Hellenism, 80.
Loveday Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT: Citation of Authority in Paul and Hellenistic Schools,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels EngbergPederson (Louisville: Westminster, 2001), 103-27; cf., Plutarch’s Quotations, comp. William C. Helmbold and Edward N. O’Neil (Baltimore: American Philological Association, 1959).
29 exposed to rhetoric and popular philosophy in the forums, and applied his Jewish theological insights in the manner that he understood to be most persuasive.89 This assessment of Paul differs from two earlier trends in Pauline scholarship. First, if Paul’s knowledge of Greco-Roman philosophy came from a rudimentary education and exposure in the forums, his usage of philosophical concepts does not require an introduction of these ideas from his exposure to “gnostic”90 ideas or other Corinthian opponents.91 Second, Paul’s Hellenism does not need to be mediated through contact with Philo or other constructions of Hellenized Judaism. 92 Then we come to the problem of the educational level of Paul’s audiences, and we rely on similar arguments and assumptions. Many NT scholars assume that at least some people in Paul’s audiences would have picked up on his usage of popular morality and rhetorical devices. This does not mean that the Pauline community at Corinth was a
89
Hellenistic Jewish schools taught both Jewish and non-Jewish content. Leo G. Purdue discusses Hellenistic Jewish schools in a discussion of Philo, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 280-2; cf., Pieter van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 3 (1988): 3-30. 90
For the debates concerning “gnosticism” and early Christianity, see Karen King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003). 91
For emphasis on “gnostic” ideas, see J. Jeremias, a0nqrwpoj, a0nqrwpinoj,’ TDNT 1:364-7; R. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, ed. E. Dinkler (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1976), 126-9. 92
U. Duchrow argues that Paul’s usage of Platonic ideas comes from his knowledge of Philo, Christenheit und Weltverantwortung. Traditionsgeschichte und systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre, Forschungen und Berichte der Evangelischen Studienge- meinschaft 25 (Stüttgart: Klett, 1970).
30 philosophical school, although it did have some resemblance to Hellenistic schools.93 Rather it suggests some degree of social stratification of Paul and his audiences because formal education was mostly reserved for the elite. It is possible that the elite were not in the Pauline community; however, they would be the most likely candidates to receive some education. What is critical, however, is some contact with the patronage system within the city.94 The access of Christians to homes in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, and Rome evidences sustained interaction between elites and non-elites. The significance of this access to a home means that Paul’s audiences had access to all the benefits that the home provides: some measure of access to goods and services like legal protection, food, health care, art, music and education, regardless of social status.95 Because several of 93
E. A. Judge, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community,” JRH (1961): 515; Stanley K. Stowers, “Does Pauline Christianity Resemble a Hellenistic Philosophy,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pederson (Westminster: John Knox, 2001), 81-102. 94
Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale, 1974); Richard Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Partons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Cynthia Damon examines the negative depiction of the client in Latin literature, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997); Andrew WallaceHadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989); Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 95
Floyd Filson, “The Significance of the Early House Churches,” JBL 58 (1939): 109-12; E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups (London: Tyndale, 1960); L. Michael White, “Social Authority in the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4.1-16,” ResQ (1987): 216; Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Sociorhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); David Balch and Carolyn Osiek, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); John Elliot, “Elders as Honored Household Heads and Not Holders of ‘Office’ in Earliest Christianity. A Review Article” BTB 33, no. 2 (2003): 77-82; Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald, A Women’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006);
31 Paul’s churches had access to these necessities, NT scholars generally consider that Paul could have been from a wealthier family and the early churches were economically diverse.96 At the same time, there is no small debate about Paul’s background. The ongoing debate between Justin Meggitt, Dale Martin, Gerd Theissen and others demonstrates that Meggitt has not been successful in defeating previous thinking about Paul’s social status. He did, however, initiate a need for much clarification. 97 It is worth noting that Balch has recently argued against Meggitt’s idea that the elite “1% lived entirely different lives than the other 99%” of the population based on the housing situation in Pompeii and Herculaneum. 98 Bruce Winter has argued that the usage of Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004). 96
Here I do not specify Paul or the Corinthian community’s social position because the sources that I am reviewing do not agree on these specifics, but generally do agree that Paul and some members of the community are not without some means. Cf., P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987); Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen, eds., Urban Religion in Roman Corinth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005). 97
Justin J. Meggitt, “Response to Martin and Theissen,” JSNT 84 (2001): 85-94; Dale D. Martin, “Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival,” JSNT 84 (2001): 51-64; Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival,” JSNT 84 (2001): 65-84; Justin Meggitt, “The First Churches: Social Life,” in The Biblical World, ed. John Barton (London: Routledge, 2002), 137-156; Gerd Theissen, “ Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival,” JSNT 25, no. 3 (2003): 371-91; Justin Meggitt, “Sources: Use, Abuse, and Neglect: The Importance of Ancient Popular Culture,” in Christianity at Corinth, ed. Edward Adams and David Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 241-54. 98
David Balch, “Rich Pompeiian Houses, Shops for Rent, and the Huge Apartment Building in Herculaneum as Typical Spaces for Pauline House Churches,” JSNT 27, no. 1 (2004): 27-46. Balch also notes that women owned some domūs. Cf., David deSilva, “Re-writing ‘Household’ in the Early Church,” ATJ 36 (2004): 85-9; cf. Guy P. R. Métraux, “Ancient Housing: ‘Oikos’ and ‘Domus’ in Greece and Rome,” JSAH 58, no. 3 (1999): 392-405.
32 oi1koj for the meeting places itself suggests an inner room of the home of an elite.99 However, it is not the simple mentioning of households in the Pauline literature that sustains the theory that the Pauline communities were socially stratified. Paul’s household management and structure reflects the management and structure of elite homes (father, wife, children, slaves heirarchy).100 The usage of kale/w in an invitation formula in 1 Cor. 10:27 parallels the elites’ invitations to dinner as preserved in papyri. 101 G. R. Horsely pointedly summarizes the importance of these papyri: An interesting verbal affinity in the NT is 1 Cor. 10:27 ei1 tij kalei= u0maj tw=n a0pi/stown (ei0j dei=pnon – these words only in D* G) ktl. Further, the situation in 1 Cor. 8:10 may be seen in illuminating the perspective when the kline invitations are taken into account. The latter, too, may be brought to bear on the elucidation of 1 Cor. 11:17-22. The papyrus invitations, then, document in quite a striking manner the situation which would have been known as normal and everyday by the recipients of Paul’s letters at Corinth, and no doubt elsewhere.102 In fact, connection to some wealthy patron in various cities may have been an important part of Paul’s missionary strategy. As Paul moved from city to city, he attempted to secure patrons who could provide various services to the young community
99
Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 206-11. 100
John Stambaugh and David Balch, The New Testament in its Social Environment, ed. Wayne Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 140. Furthermore, Stambaugh and Balch note that the household structure that Paul demands is that of the upper class, with marriage and slaves, 124. 101
Chan-Hae Kim, “The Papyrus Invitation,” JBL 34, no. 3 (1975): 398-402; Ralph Terry, “An Anlaysis of Certain Features of the Discourse in the New Testament Book of 1 Corinthians” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 1993), 25. 102
New Docs 1:9.
33 of Christ believers.103 These patronesses include Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 2:2-3) in Philippi, as well as the tradition of Lydia, who while she may not be historical, is a testament to the memory of patronal support of Paul (Acts 16:14-15). The household contexts that indicate some connection with wealth are referenced in the letters to Galatia, Corinth, and Rome but contrast with the absence of households in the Thessalonian correspondence, a city in which Paul failed to secure a patron. 104 The book of Acts presents a level of support for Paul that is completely foreign to the Thessalonian epistles but comparable to the Corinthian corespondence. While not historically valuable in reconstructing Paul’s experiences, Acts does present an important scenerio in which Paul’s mission could thrive: the critical support of benefactors. Acts indicates that wealthier women in Thessalonica and Jason (Acts 17:5-7) supported the church there, Beroea enjoyed the support of men and women, and Dionysius and Damaris were among Paul’s benefactors in Athens (Acts 17:4, 12, 34). Paul was especially fortunate in Corinth: Phoebe of Cenchrae (Rom. 16:1-2), Gaius (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14), and Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15-17). Because the elite household – which included women, children, clients, slaves, and freedpersons - was just as much a source of education as the forum, we should not imagine that Paul’s 103
Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale Univerity Press, 1983), 77; cf., the portraits of Cloe and Phoebe, 58-9. Cf., Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, eds. The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception, and Criticism, 2nd ed., Norton Critical Editions in the History of Ideas (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007); Margaret Y. MacDonald and Daniel J. Harrington, Colossians and Ephesians (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 166. The issues related to patronage and Paul will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5. 104
J. M. G. Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity,” JSNT 47 (1992): 49-74. The lack of support from an elite in Thessalonica would leave the Pauline community vulnerable to the persecution that they suffered.
34 audiences knew of popular morality and rhetoric only from the public interaction of the male heads of the households. The oi]koj provided a medium by which everyone connected to it (wife, son, daughter, slaves and freedpersons) could have access to its benefits, among these being listening to philosophical discussions at the symposium, learning from a tutor, or being a tutor oneself. These discussions and teachings were most likely eclectic, drawing from a wide variety of philosophical traditions (Plato, Aristotle, Epicurean, Stoic, neo-Pythagorean) that have had an impact on New Testament studies. New Testament research has considered the importance of Pythagorean texts, Platonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in interpreting Paul. I will consider each of these briefly in turn.
Pythagoreanism The history of the Pythagoreans is the most difficult and fragmentary in the history of philosophy due to its antiquity and the nature of the available sources.105 According to tradition, the original school consisted of Pythagoras and his family, and he forbade the teaching of his philosophy to outsiders, which eventually led to the important tradition of mothers passing on writings to their daughters. In the first century, interest in Pythagoras revived with the availability of Pythagorean sentences, the a1kousma or
105
The most important works in English are Holger Thesleff, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period (Ǻbo: Ǻbo Academi, 1961); J. A. Philip, Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966); Walter Burket, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); for texts see Holger Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period; for translations of the Pythagorean corpus see Kenneth Gutherie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings with Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Phaney, 1988).
35 ai0ni/gmata. 106 The most important sources for these sentences are the now lost commentaries by Aristotle and Androcydes the Pythagorean, hinting at both their antiquity and genuine association with Pythagoras or his followers. The writings of the Pythagorean pseudepigraphon are impossible to date,107 but many of the Pythagorean a1kousma or ai0ni/gmata which appear in the NT108 (only by parallel) and in many other first century and later writers such as Alexander Polyhistor, Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Porphyry, and Iamblichus may be genuinely Pythagorean and indicate a renewal of Pythagorean traditions. 109 This developing Pythagorean tradition may have had an impact on first century thought. It seems to me, that the pre-Socratic Pythagoreanism, Hellenistic neo-Pythagoreanism, 110 and
106
Some important studies in the Pythagorean sentences are F. Boehm, “De symbolis pythagoreis” (PhD diss., Berlin, 1905); Armand Delatte, Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne (Paris: Champion, 1915); Martin Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (München: Beck, 1955), 703-8; chapters on the sentences are available in J. A. Philip, Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), 134-50 and Walter Burket, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 166-92. 107
For a discussion of the problems related to date, see Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes,” ANRW 2.26.1, 380-411. 108
Robert Grant’s review of Pythagoreanism in the NT is reduced to parallels only and no direct Pythagorean sentences appear, “Dietary Laws Among the Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians,” HTR 73 (1980), 299-310. See also the studies referenced below. Cf., Burket who demonstrates that the curious Pythagorean diet is in the oldest traditions, Lore and Science, 180-5. 109
Johan C. Thom, “‘Don’t Walk on the Highways”: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Christian Literature,” JBL 113, no. 1 (1994): 95; cf., Johan Thom, “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras: Its Literary Composition and Religio-historical Significance” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1990). 110
There is widespread consensus that the Pythagorean pseudepigraphon - that is, the collection of Hellenistic of writings which are attributed to classical Pythagorean philosophers - is evidence for a revived interested in Pythagoreanism in the first to
36 Christianities and Judaisms111 all had complex - albeit very slight - interweaving influences on one another. Johan Thom calls the Pythagorean influence on Hellenistic Judaisms “tangential,” and the references are slim. 112 Philo attributes the saying “Do not walk on the highways” to “that saintly community of the Pythagoreans.”113 Louis Feldman suggests that Josephus makes Abraham parallel to Pythagoras, but the parallel does not have much force: 114 like Pythagoras, Abraham goes to Egypt, but this is a familiar schema in traditions related to wise-persons. 115 Robert Grant also notes that
second centuries. All related details, including the precise dating of the documents and whether or not there were neo-Pythagorean communities is widely disputed, for examples see C. J. De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. III: The Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 340-53. It is critical here to distinguish between the neo-Pythagorean movement and the Pythagorean pseudepigraphon. The neo-Pythagorean movement was a movement in philosophy in the first century with renewed interest in genuine Pythagoreanism, and the Pythagorean pseudepigraphon arose out of this renewed interest but does not share a connection with Pythagorean philosophy. 111
See, for example the similarities and differences between genuine Pythagorean communities and the Essenes established in Justin Taylor, Pythagoreans and Essenes: Structural Parallels (Paris: Peeters, 2004). 112
Johan Thom, “Pythagoreanism,” ABD 5.564.
113
Philo, Quod omn. prob. 2. See the study by Erwin Goodenough, A neoPythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932). Eduard Schweizer discusses Pythagorean influences in Philo, Josephus, and Plutarch and argues that these elements have impact on how we should interpret Galatians and Colossians, “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20,” JBL 107, no. 3 (1989): 459. Schweizer suggests that Paul in Galatians and whoever wrote Colossians were responding to neo-Pythagorean influences, 466. 114
Louis H. Feldman, “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus,” TAPA 99 (1968), 151. 115
Oswyn Murray, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharoic Kingship,” JEA 56 (1970): 141-71; nevertheless the historical question of whether or not Pythagoras travelled to Egypt is explored by Peter Kingsly, “From Pythagoras to the Turba philosophorum: Egypt and Pythagorean Tradition,” JWarb 57 (1994): 1-13.
37 Josephus thought that Jewish dietary regulations came from Egypt.116 With regards to parallels, David Balch’s studies in the neo-Pythagorean writings and the NT household codes are the most important.117 On this point, it is necessary to emphasize that the neoPythagorean writings are “Pythagorean” only in the sense that they bear the names of known and unknown ancient Pythagoreans but contain no Pythagorean philosophy (such as music theory, geometry, doctrine of the soul and reincarnation, dietary restrictions) other than popular morality.
Platonism Most of the conversation regarding Platonic influence on Paul centers on anthropological viewpoints expressed in Paul and his contemporaries. Precisely how Paul adopts Platonic divisions of the soul has significant impact on how interpreters approach Paul’s understanding of the human condition, the effects of sin, the meaning of salvation, the resurrection of the body, and freewill. Methodological problems arise from the fact that both Pauline and Platonic interpretations are constantly in flux, and the writings of both of these writers express developments on almost every important concept. Plato contradicts himself on almost everything (reflecting both his dialogical style and development of thought),118 and the development of Paul’s theologies and
116
Joseph. AJ 2.282; Grant, “Dietary Laws,” 304.
117
Balch, David, “Neopythagorean Moralists,” 380-411; Balch, “Household Ethical Codes in Peripatetic, Neopythagorean, and Early Christian Literature,” in SBLSP 11:397-104. 118
Contradiction becomes paradox in Raphael Demos, “Paradoxes in Plato’s Doctrine of the Ideal State,” CQ n.s. 7, no. 3/4 (1957): 164-174; for Lysis, see Julia Annas, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism,” Mind, n.s. 86, no. 344 (1977):
38 anthropologies are not without dispute in NT scholarship. 119 Nevertheless, some scholars trace some of Paul’s concepts to Plato. For example, Roy Bowen Ward argues that Paul’s view of homosexual contact as being “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-7 has its roots in Timaeus rather than Laws, and Ward concludes that Paul is arguing that sex kata fu/sin is only heterosexual and for procreation only. 120 Navigating through the differing interpretations of both the apostle and Plato, several scholars have argued that Paul’s concept of the inner human being (o e2sw a1nqrwpoj) has its origins in Plato. Betz argues that Paul’s anthropology has its origins in Plato, but it was most likely developed in conversation with his collaborators rather than with his opponents (gnostic or 532-554; G. E. L. Owen, “The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues,” CQ n.s. 3, no. 1/2 (1953): 87; A. L. Peck, “Plato’s Parmenides: Some Suggestions for Its Interpretation,” The Classical Quarterly, n.s. 3, no. 3/4 (1953): 126-150; Albert Cook, “Dialectic, Irony, and Myth in Plato’s Phaedrus,” AJPh 106, no. 4 (1985): 440; Giovanni R. F. Ferrar, The Cambridge companion to Plato’s Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 437. 119
For review of the issues related to this problem, arguments, and bibliography, see Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971) and Geurt Hendrik van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 120
Roy Bowen Ward, “Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27,” HTR 90, no. 3 (1997): 263-284. Ward further demonstrates that Philo and the Sentences of Pseudo-Phoclides use similar arguments. For more recent discussions and bibliography on Paul’s use of Platonic anthrology (as mediated through Stoicism or Hellenstic Judaism), see John J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: Essays in the Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1989), 20-3; Dale Martin, “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32,” Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995): 332-355; Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 271-80; Robert Jewett, “The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans 1:24-7,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L. Balch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 223-241; Diana Swancutt, “The Disease of Effemination,” in New Testament Masculinities, ed. Stephen Moore and Janice Anderson (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 193-235.
39 otherwise) or by interaction with ideas present in Philo.121 Emma Wassermann demonstrates that Paul’s notion of sin in Romans 6-8 is an appropriation of apocalyptic thought to a notion of Platonic immortality. 122 In contrast to scholars who have found concepts in Paul’s thought which may have originated in Plato, Athenagoras Ch. Zakopoulos reviews the supposed relationships between Plato and Paul and concludes that Paul has a monistic view of humanity that is completely uninfluenced by Plato. Instead, Paul embraces a Hebraic view that he expressed in Greek philosophical terms without adhering to their traditional philosophical meanings.123 Therefore, Paul could utilize and/or modify philosophical terms without commitment to a philosophical tradition and use them according to his specific needs. The importance of Aristotle for the interpretation of Paul comes into play with his influence on later writers such as Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca. Therefore, Aristotle’s works on ethics are the starting point of discussions regarding popular moral attitudes such as slavery, marriage and family life, and friendship.124 Similarly, Aristotle’s works
121
For a history of this issue see Hans Dieter Betz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (o e2sw a1nqrwpoj) in the Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46, no. 3 (2000): 315-41. 122
Emma Wassermann, “Paul among the Philosophers: The Case of Sin in Romans 6-8,” JSNT 30, no. 4 (2008): 387-415. 123
Athenagoras Ch. Zakopoulos, Plato and Saint Paul on Man: A Psychological, Philosophical, and Theological Study (Thessalonica: Melissa, 2002), 151-7. 124
Jonathan A. Jacobs, Aristotle’s Virtues: Nature, Knowledge and Human Good (New York: Lang, 2004); Suzanne Stern-Gillet and Kevin Corrigan, eds., Reading Ancient Texts, Volume II: Aristotle and Neoplatonism (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Amélie Oksenberg Rort, ed., Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1996); Katerina Ierodiakonou, ed., Topics in Stoic Philosophy (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, repr. 2004); Giovanni Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The schools of the Imperial Age, ed. and trans. John R. Catan (New York: State
40 on poetics and rhetoric are the starting point for rhetorical studies, being influential in later sources such as Cicero and Quintilian. 125
Cynicism Abraham Malherbe has consistently argued for locating Paul within Cynicism, concluding that Paul more closely aligned himself with moderate Cynics in his ethics and with the Epicureans in his concern for community. Malherbe situates Paul’s description of himself in 1 Thess as a specific type of ideal Cynic (a moderate rather than a highly ascetic) as described by Dio Chrysostom and pseudo-Diogenes. 126 Dio says that some Cynics do not really enter the struggle (agon) of life that Cynicism claims, preaching for money or self-gratification, using flattery and frank speech inappropriately. Like Paul’s, Dio’s ideal Cynic, such as Musonius or Demonax, is frank but gentle as a nurse. Malherbe further notes that many New Testament scholars use the problematic term “Cynic-Stoic” when referring to elements of Greco-Roman philosophy. He more clearly
University of New York Press, 1990); Keimpe Algra and M. H Koenen, Lucretius and his Intellectual Background: Proceedings of the Colloquium, Amsterdam, 26-28 June 1996 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1997); F. H. Sandbach, Aristotle and the Stoics (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1985). 125
See the essays in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter, NovTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999): Thomas Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique,” 108-24; Duane F. Watson, “The Contributions and Limitations of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory for Constructing the Rhetorical and Historical Situations of a Pauline Epistle,” 123-51; Dean Anderson, Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, ed. Tj. Baarda, et al, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). 126
Abraham Malherbe, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970): 203-17.
41 defines self-sufficiency as moderately Cynic when he describes Paul’s notion of it in Phil. 4.127 Using the Cynic epistles, Malherbe again argues that the Cynics themselves did not hold to a unified canon of doctrine, but adjusted their behavior to suit their context, strengthening his position that Paul represents a more moderate view.128 Ronald Hock has suggested that Paul’s references to work and his refusal to accept payment from the Corinthians has Cynic connotations. 129
Stoicism Early Christian interest in Stoicism is enduring. Marcia Colish has surveyed early Christian scholarship (from the fathers through scholasticism) on Stoicism and Paul, demonstrating early Christian affinity for Stoicism and how it complements Paul.130 Benjamin Fiore situates 1 Cor. 5-6 in philosophical discussion with Plutarch’s Dialogue
127
Abraham Malherbe, “Paul’s Self-sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. J. T. Fitzgerald, NovTSup 82 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 125-139 128
“Self Definition among Cynics and Epicureans,” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Augsburg: Fortress Press, 1988), 11-24. 129
Ronald Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class,” JBL 97, no. 4 (1978); 558; Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 29. 130
Marcia Cornish, “Stoicism and the New Testament: An Essay in Historiography,” in ANRW 2.26.1 (1992), reprint from Principat 26:1 (1992): 334-79; cf., Cornish, “Pauline Theology and Stoic Philosophy: An Historical Study,” JAAR 47:1 (1979): 129; Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (New Haven: Yale, 1985).
42 on Love.131 Fiore compares Paul’s indifference to life and death (with respect to their impact on virtue and devotion to Christ) to the Stoic a0dia/fora132 – the external things that do not matter to the Stoic for happiness. Dale B. Martin has demonstrated that Paul’s idea of “the [Corinthian] body” embraces a Stoic anthropology. 133 Troels EngbergPederson is the leading scholar on the relationship between Paul and the Stoics, arguing historical, exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological relationships between Paul and the Stoics. His primary focus is Paul’s usage of Stoic argumentation, concluding that Paul uses a distinctly Stoic form to implement his theology.134 Albert V. Garcilazo recently argued that the problems in Corinth are rooted in Stoic influences exerted by the higher status members of the community who adopted Stoic views concerning dualistic anthropology and cosmology.135 Engberg-Pederson has more recently argued that Paul’s cosmology of body and spirit (the pneuma is tied directly to heaven) finds a parallel in Stoicism (the idea that reason, heaven, and body are interconnected) and nowhere else. 136 131
Benjamin Fiore, “Reason in Paul and Plutarch: 1 Corinthians 5-6 and the Polemic against Epicureans,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians, ed. David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1990), 135-43. 132
James L. Jaquette, “Life and Death, ‘Adiaphora,’ and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies,” NovT 38, no. 1 (1996): 30-54. 133
Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1995), 66. 134
Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster, 2000); Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 135
Albert V. Garcilazo, The Corinthian Dissenters and the Stoics, SBL 106, ed. Hemchand Gossi (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 77-8. 136
Troels Engberg-Pederson, “The Material Spirit: Cosmology and Ethics in Paul,” NTS 55 (2009): 179-97.
43 Paul and Seneca The relationship between Paul and Seneca in particular has been a favorite topic of conversation because of the striking similarities between the two and the historical connection whereby Acts 12:18 places Paul before Seneca’s brother, Gallio.137 Linus, Augustine, and Jerome wrote of correspondence between Seneca and Paul. Thirteen epistles exist that appear to document such correspondence, but the overwhelming consensus is that these epistles are forgeries. Kreyher has suggested that early Christian scholars knew of other letters that are now lost.138 The recent conversation on Seneca and Paul has focused on the similarities and differences in their theology, anthropology, and ethics. J. N. Sevenster structures his monograph around these questions.139 Engberg-
137
A. Fluery, Saint Paul et Sénèque, Reserches sur les rapports du philosophe avec l’apôtre et sur l’infiltration du christianisme naissant à travers le paganisme (Paris: Librarie Philosophique Ladrange, 1853); Charles Aubertin, Sénèque et Saint Paul (3rd ed., Paris: Librairie Académique, 1857, 1872); F. C. Baur, “Seneca und Paulus, Das Verhaltnis des Stoicismus zum Christentum nach den Schriften Seneca,” ZWT 1 (1858); Johannes Kreyer, L. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchristentum (Berlin: Gaertners, 1887); J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1953, first ed. 1913), 270-333; Kurt Deissner, Paulus und Seneca, Fördung christlicher Theologie (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 21; ed. D. A. Schlatter and D. W. Lütgert; Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1917); Th. Schreiner, Seneca in Gegensatz zu Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1936); Pierre Benoit, “Sénèque et Saint Paul,” RB 53 (1946): 7-35; Alfons Kurfess, “Zu dem apokryphen Breifwechsel zwischen dem Philosophen Seneca und dem Apostel Paulus,” Aevum 26 (1952): 42-8; Paul Berry is convinced that the correspondence between Paul and Seneca, consisting of 13 letters, is genuine, Correspondence Between Paul and Seneca, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 12 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1999); Berry, The Encounter Between Seneca and Christianity (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2002). 138
Kreyer, Seneca, 178.
139
Sevenster, Seneca, 196-99.
44 Pederson has demonstrated that Paul uses the structures set out in Seneca’s system of benefaction in De Beneficiis.140
Epicureanism The discussion of Paul and Epicurean thought mostly relates to his anti-Epicurean tendencies.141 Abraham Malherbe situated Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Cor. 15:32 within antiEpicurean polemic, which characterizes the Epicureans as “beasts.”142 Malherbe also understands the command to “work with your hands” as a correction to Epicurean and Cynic distaste for manual labor.143 Norman DeWitt is the leading authority on Epicurus and Paul, and consistently argues that Paul is Epicurean in theory and anti-Epicurean in practice. 144 It is critical to note that DeWitt insists that Paul knew of the “Canon of Epicurus” (the basic tenants of Epicureanism) and accepted several of their theories but
140
Troels Engberg-Pederson, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s xa/rij and its Human Response,” HTR 101, no. 1 (2008): 15-44. 141
However, there is a strong tradition in earlier Christian writers who approve of Epicurean philosophies and practices. See Richard Jungkutz, “Epicureanism and the Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1961); “Christian Approval of Epicureanism,” CH 31, no. 3 (1962): 279-93; Jungkutz, Christian Approval of Epicureanism (Chicago: American Society of Church History, 1962). 142
Abraham Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 87, no. 1 (1968): 71-80.
143
Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 96. 144
Norman W. De Witt, Epicurus and his Philosophy (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1954); DeWitt, St. Paul and Epicurus (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1954), 77, 86, 89.
45 guided his audiences away from Epicurean philosophy. 145 For example, the Epicurean teaching that one can trust the senses to learn of reality appears in Paul’s notion of face to face knowledge (1 Cor 13:12) but in Colossians Paul warns the reader against the one who is “taking his stand on what he has seen.”146 Polemicists often ridiculed the Epicureans as a group that based their entire system of philosophy on their understanding of the a1tomoj: their entire cosmology and ethics rested on the smallest indivisible unit, giving the appearance of great weakness. Paul likewise directs his attention to “the weak and beggardly elements” but describes the resurrection with a1tomoj, which DeWitt notes that several scholars translate “in a moment.”147 Clarence Glad has produced a study on psychagogy (moral guidance for neophytes) in Paul and Philodemus. Like DeWitt, Clarence Glad suggests that Paul may have known about Epicurean principles of friendship and frankness as described in Philodemus and applied them in varying degrees to the “weak” and “strong” character types in 1 Corinthians and Romans.148 Malherbe argues that Paul’s ideas in 1 Thess are anti-Epicurean in many ways: Paul emphasized brotherly love rather than friendship language, the apostles are God-taught rather than self-taught, and his exhortation to live a quiet life is exclusive of the Epicurean ideal
145
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 10.
146
The translation and assumption that both Corinthians and Colossians are genuinely Pauline belong to DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 10. 147 148
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 12. Gal. 4:9.
Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
46 community. 149 Paul Holloway argues that Paul’s consolations in Phil 4.6-9 constitute a single consultation in the Epicurean style described by Cicero and implemented often by Plutarch.150
Evaluation In the first three sections of this chapter, I have briefly discussed the Corpus Hellenisticum, the publications of the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of SBL and current conversations regarding Paul and popular Hellenistic moral philosophy. Wettstein’s collection of Jewish, Greek, and Latin parallels to the New Testament inspired later scholars to review systematically Hellenistic references in the Corpus Hellenisticum. Contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum have focused on bringing to light parallels regarding style as well as religious and political ideas. Most of the contributions to this project briefly but critically introduce a writer that is a near contemporary of Paul and then list parallels.151 W. C. Van Unnik suggested in 1964 that contributors work to provide both clear criteria for choosing a parallel and explanation of it in light of various contexts. This call for methodological reflection was not substantially observed until the volumes on Plutarch
149
Abraham Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” in Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem Fereundes- und Schuleterkreis Dieter Lubermann zum 60. Geburstag, ed. Stefan Maser and Egbert Schlarb (Marburg: Elwart Verlag, 1999); cf., Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). 150
Paul A. Holloway, “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8-9,” HTR 91, no. 1 (1998): 89-96. 151
Peter Van Der Horst is particularly fond of this method.
47 edited by Hans D. Betz appeared more than ten years later. In many ways, the work of the Corpus Hellenisticum culminated in the Neuen Wettstein and related studies, but scholars are continually working to discover and interpret similarities between Hellenistic writings and Paul. The great achievement of these studies is that they serve as one starting point for situating Paul within Hellenistic culture. The Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of the Society of Biblical Literature has produced four volumes of essays that describe the nature friendship and patronage in the Pauline communities. These essays offer critical descriptions of friendship and patronage from the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, and Philodemus that are invaluable in interpreting Paul’s writings. The group also published a collection of articles in honor of Abraham Malherbe which offers methodological insights and further exegesis of the New Testament in its Hellenistic contexts. Further conversation concerning Paul and popular Hellenistic philosophy has produced important resources for identifying similarities and differences between Paul and all of the popular schools. The ancient Greek schools are important because Paul’s near contemporaries used these earlier schools to shape their thinking. Therefore, works on rhetoric and epistolary theory that use Quintilian, Cicero, and pseudo-Libanius begin with Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics. Studies of Pauline ethics identify parallels in Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch that have their roots in earlier Stoic, Epicurean, Cynic, Aristotelian, and Platonic ethics. The great achievement of these studies is the placement of Paul in contemporary moral conversations that have both precedence and antecedence in Greek and Roman thought.
48 While as a whole these approaches are invaluable, nevertheless, these conversations pay little attention to matters of gender, particularly the participation of women in these philosophical traditions. There is little consideration of the traditions of philosophically educated women in the ancient world and the possible involvement of such women in the Pauline communities as interpreters of Paul. With few exceptions, interest in such questions has been tangential at best in both New Testament and classical scholarship.
The Conversation Concerning Women in Greco-Roman Philosophy The conversation regarding the history of scholarship on women in ancient philosophy is quite limited.152 The histories of the female teachers and students – as well as the wives, sisters, and daughters of male philosophers and women philosophers – are a neglected topic. The standard histories of philosophy, for example, are often silent regarding philosophically educated women. Alfred Weber shows no interest in the history of women in ancient philosophy, and neither do Alexander, Thilly, Webb, Durant, Alpern, Bréhier, Fuller, and Mascia. 153 Copleston dismisses the lives of Pythagoras in his
152
There was not even an attempt to recover the ancient history of philosophically educated women in the 1989 Hypatia issue dedicated to the history of women in philosophy. Instead, Mary E. Waithe, “On Not Teaching the History of Philosophy” Hypatia 4, no. 1, The History of Women in Philosophy (1989): 132-138. 153
Alfred Weber, History of Philosophy, trans. Frank Thilly (New York: Charles Schribner, 1896); A. B. D. Alexander, A Short History of Philosophy (Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1908); Frank Thilly, A History of Philosophy (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1914; 1951; 1957); Clement C.J. Webb, A History of Philosophy (London: Williams and Norgate, 1915); William Durant, The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926); Henry Alpern, The March of Philosophy (New York: Dial, 1933); Émile Bréhier, Histoire de la Philosophie, ed. L’Antiquite et le Moyen Age (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
49 biographers (who indicate that the early Pythagoreans passed on their teachings from mother to daughter), saying that they “can hardly be said to afford us reliable testimony, and it is doubtless right to call them romances.”154 Even works produced during the rise of feminism and onwards do not mention the most famous female philosophers (Theano, Diotima, and Hipparchia) or poets (Sappho, Erinna, and Nossis).155 Bertrand Russell mentions Hypatia but takes no interest in the ancient female philosophers. 156 Ralph M. McInerny intimates that all of the biographical information concerning Pythagoras is legend (but seems to accept traditions related to the community from the same sources) and that Xanthippe is also a rhetorical figure.157 Stephen R. L. Clark mentions parenthetically that Crates’s wife Hipparchia accompanied him, but other than this note makes no mention of the involvement of women in ancient philosophy.158 Disinterest limits scholarly discussion and consideration of the roles of women in the history of philosophy. Historians of philosophy know their sources well and therefore 1960; 1st ed. 1938); Benjamin A. G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, trans. Sterling M. McMurrin (New York: Holt, 1960; 1st ed. 1938); Carmin Mascia, A History of Philosophy (Paterson: St. Anthony Guilded Press, 1957). 154
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome (New Haven: Westminster, 1955; first published Westminster: Newman, 1946), 29. 155
Francis H. Parker, The Story of Western Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967); Richard H. Popkin, ed., Columbia History of Western Philosophy (New York: Columbia, 1998). 156
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945), 368. 157
Ralph M. McInerny, A History of Western Philosophy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963), 40-2, 111. 158
Stephen R. L. Clark, “Ancient Philosophy,” in The Oxford History of Western Philosophy, ed. Anthony Kenny (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 39.
50 have read about the mothers, female teachers, students, wives, sisters, and daughters of the philosophers – and about the traditions of intense female involvement in Pythagoreanism, Epicureanism, or Stoicism - so it does not appear to be ignorance that accounts for the silence of historians concerning philosophically educated women. The scope of most histories of Hellenistic philosophies is limited to important shifts in Greek thinking, and because these historians have identified no woman who founded a school or made a significant contribution to shaping Greek thought, the activity of women in philosophy is ignored.159 Nevertheless, the sources that historians have used to reconstruct the thinking of ancient philosophers contain witness to the activity of women that is useful for reconstructing the history of philosophically educated women. There are, however, a few scholars who have directed their attention to the question of the history of women’s involvement in philosophy. The interest in the topic begins in our time with Mary Beard’s germinal work, which inspired later generations of scholars to begin to recover the roles of women in ancient history.160 However, most studies on women and the history of philosophy deal with the idea of woman in philosophy, the ideology of women’s liberation, or women who were active after the third century CE (e.g., Hypatia and beyond).161 Aegidius Menagius’s seventeenth 159
Indian and Chinese histories of philosophy do pay attention to the importance of women philosophers. Lisa Raphals, Sharing the Light: Representations of Women and Virtue in Early China, Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), 243-6; R. C. Majumbar, Ancient India (Delhi: Montilal Banarsidass, 2003, 1st ed. 1952), 91. 160
Mary R. Beard, Woman as Force in History: A Study in Traditions and Realities (New York: Macmillan, 1946). 161
Nancy Tuana, Woman and the History of Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1992); Linda McAlister, ed. Hypatia’s Daughters: Fifteen Hundred Years of
51 century work Historia Mulierum Philosopharum, translated by Beatrice Zeller, in 1984 caused renewed interest in the topic of philosophically educated women.162 Sarah B. Pomeroy has reviewed the literary and archeological evidence for the education of women in the ancient world, but her work seems completely ignored by historians of philosophy. 163 Richard Hawley wrote a brief article on the problems related to reconstructing the histories of women in ancient philosophy, noting the challenges presented by the close association of female philosophers with men – either they are the wives, daughters, or lovers of the philosophers and all of the traditions are preserved by male writers.164 Kathleen Wilder produced an article on ancient women philosophers, but her work does not improve on that of Ménage. 165 Mary Ellen Waithe is uncritical in her identification of many philosophers and their teachings in her Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D, which, being little more than a translation of neo-
Women Philosophers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996); Julie K. Ward, ed., Feminism and Ancient Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 1996) Prudence Allen, The Concept of Woman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Genevieve Lloyd, ed., Feminism and History of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 162
Ménage, Gilles, The History of Women Philosophers, trans. Beatrice H. Zedler (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984). 163
Susan B. Pomery, “Technikai kai mousikai: The Education of Women in the Fourth Century and the Hellenistic Period,” AJAH 2 (1977): 51-68. 164
Richard Hawley, “The Problem of Women Philosophers in Ancient Greece,” in Women in Ancient Societies: ‘An Illusion in the Night’, ed. Leonie J. Archer, et al (New York: Routledge, 1994), 70-87; cf., Hawley, “Ancient Collections of Women's Sayings,” BICS 50 (2007): 161-69. 165
Kathleen Wilder, “Women Philosophers in the Ancient World: Donning the Mantle,” Hypatia 1, no. 1 (1986): 21-62.
52 Pythagorean pseudepigraphon, has not been well received because of its unreliability.166 Ethel M. Kersey produced a sourcebook of women philosophers that is almost exclusively reliant on Ménage and Waithe for ancient sources, and Kersey offers minimal critical notes.167 Sarah B. Pomeroy’s review of the status of research on women in the ancient world mentions none of these studies, nor any other that specifically addresses the history of philosophically educated women.168 Kate Lindemann owns and operates a website that has a credible list of female philosophers from all over the world with minimal critical notes.169 Another collaborative bibliography on women in philosophy with a corresponding website that posts updates to the work appears to be abandoned.170
166
Mary Ellen Waithe, Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987). Waithe is a bit more enthusiastic in identifying female philosophers and speculating on the authenticity of documents attributed to women than she is in critically verifying and interpreting her sources. See reviews by R. M. Dancy review of Mary Ellen Waithe, On A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. 1, Hypatia 1, no. 1 (1986): 160-71; Monica Green review of Mary Ellen Waithe, On A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. 1, Isis 80, no. 1 (1989): 178-179 and Gillian Clarke review of Mary Ellen Waithe, On A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. 1, CR, n.s., 38, no. 2 (1988): 429-430. 167
Ethel M. Kersey, Women Philosophers: A Bio-Critical Source Book (New York: Greenwood, 1989). Unfortunately, Kersey does not expand on the social characteristics of women in the ancient world farther than the seclusion of Athenian women in 5th century BCE. 168
Sarah Pomeroy, “The Study of Women in Antiquity: Past, Present, and Future,” AJR 112, no. 2 (1991): 263-8. 169
Kate Lindemann, Women Philosophers Web Site, http://www.womenphilosophers.com, accessed Feb 6, 2012. 170
E. M. Barth, Women Philosophers: A Bibliography of Books Through 1990 (Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center, 1992); Noël Hutchings and William D. Rumsey, eds., The Collaborative Bibliography of Women in Philosophy (Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center, 1997). The vision of the Collaborative Bibliography was broad: to create an international bibliography of female philosophers together with a list of their works. Unfortunately this project seems to be
53 Ancient papyri, monuments, and other literary sources indicate the education of women from various social status during our time period.171 As a whole, modern critical review of the history of women in philosophy and scholarly dialogue on the topic are limited to a smattering of articles and a few monographs. 172 The most recent study of the history of
abandoned. The online database http://billyboy.ius.indiana.edu/WomeninPhilosophy/WomeninPhilo.html is no longer accessible (last attempted Feb 6, 2012), and no further editions of the bibliography have been produced. 171
H. W. Pleket, Epigraphica II: Texts on the Social History of the Greek World (Leiden: Brill, 1969). In this paper I will cite Pleket by the number of the entry and not page numbers as this matches standard notation for this work in other sources. Cf., Riet van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996); I. M. Plant, Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome: An Anthology (Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2004); Ellen Green, ed., Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome (Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2005); Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook in Translation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005); Roger S. Bagnell, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt 300BC AD 400 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008). 172
P. J. Bicknell, “Sokrates’ Mistress Xanthippe,” Apeiron 8 (1974) 1-5; D. Nais, “The Shrewish Wife of Socrates,” EMC 4, no. 1 (1985) 97-9; H. Eisenberger, Sokrates, Diotima und die “Wahrheit” über »eros«, ed. Freyr Roland Varwig (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1987), 83-218; D. M. Halperin, “Why is Diotima a Woman? Platonic Eros and the Figuration of Gender,” in Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient World, ed. D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); D. Frede, “Out of the cave: what Socrates learned from Diotima,” in Nomodeiktes. Greek studies in honor of Martin Ostwald, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Joseph Farrell (Ann Anbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 397-422; Richard Hawley, “The Problem of Women Philosophers in Ancient Greece,” in Women in Ancient Societies: ‘An Illusion in the Night,’ ed. Leonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler, and Maria Wyke; New York: Routledge, 1994): 70-87; Wendy E. Helleman, “Penelope as Lady Philosophy,” Phoenix 49, no. 4 (1995) 283-302; Helleman, “Homer’s Penelope: A Tale of Feminine Arete,” EMC 14.2 (1995) 227-250; V. Lambropoulou, “Some Pythagorean Female Virtues,” in Women in Antiquity: New Assessments (ed. R. Hawley and B. Levick; London: Routledge, 1995), 122-35); J. T. Dyson, “Dido the Epicurean,” CA 15, no. 2 (1996): 203-221; Mercedes Mauch, Senecas Frauenbild in den philosophischen Schriften (Berlin: Peter Lang, 1997); Kenneth Dover; “Two Women of Samos,” in The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece
54 women in philosophy appears in a chapter of Joan E. Taylor’s Jewish Women Philosophers of First Century Alexandria. Taylor reviews the primary sources of Menagius and Waithe and concludes that the traditions of women in philosophy are encased in misogynistic rhetoric.173 Nevertheless, misogynistic rhetoric of ancient philosophers does not nullify the usefulness of these sources concerning historicity of philosophically educated women because archaeological and papryologial evidence supports the methods of education found in these literary sources. Furthermore, there is evidence of woman-to-woman sharing of philosophical reflections and female heads of households bringing into the home whatever they desire – be it slaves, art, poetry, or philosophers.174
Philosophically Educated Women Reading Paul: A Neglected Topic Some contributors to the Corpus Hellensticum and the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of the SBL have highlighted similarities between ancient literature and Paul that have some relevance to the question of educated women in the community. Where the contributors have demonstrated some important similarities between Paul and important sources for reconstructing ancient philosophically educated women, scholars typically neglect interpreting Paul in light of this important context. For example, Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian and Rome, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 222-82. 173
Joan E. Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers of First Century Alexandria (New York: Oxford, 2003), 173-226. 174
This evidence will be presented and evaluated in chapter three.
55 Literature contains Plutarch’s essays “On Consolation to his Wife,” “The Virtues of Women,” and the “Dinner of the Seven Sages.” These dialogs offer rich insight as to how women had access to philosophy and the nature of dinner parties in the ancient world. Hubert Martin, Jr., and Jane E. Philipps situate Plutarch’s consolation to his wife within Greco-Roman rhetoric and philosophy, concluding that he follows pseudoDionysius’s Rhetoric for its form and common philosophical themes for its content.175 In her review of “The Virtues of Women,” Kathleen O’Brien Wicker does not consider the social status of women when interpreting Paul’s instructions, as does Plutarch in his “Advice to the Bride and Groom,” where wealthier women are exempt from moral norms associated with women of lower status.176 David Aune observes that Plutarch in “Dinner of the Seven Sages” and Paul in 1 Corinthians share the same interest in behavior at the symposium. 177 Related to the silence of women and order in the church, Betz and Smith note that in 1 Cor. 14:33-4 there are two parallels to Plutarch, Moralia 385c which includes: pantaxou= triw=n nomizome/nwn ([the Muses] are understood as three) and to mhdemia?= gunaiki proj to xrhsth/rion ei]nai proselqei=n (no woman is allowed to approach the oracle) – the argument for unity (1 Cor. 4:14; 7:17) and sacred law (cf., 1 Clem. 23:1; 29:1).178 Finally, Balch’s articles concerning the neo-Pythagoreans often
175
Hubert Martin, Jr. and Jane E. Phillips, “Consolatio ad uxorem” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, ed. Hans D. Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 410-13. 176
“Mulierum Virtues,” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 117. 177
David E. Aune, “Septem Sapientium Convivium,” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, ed. Hans D. Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 76. 178
Betz and Smith, “The Delphic Maxim,” 223.
56 address writings attributed to women, but he does not imagine philosophically educated women encountering Paul. The publications of the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of SBL occasionally address issues related to ancient women. Philodemus in the New Testament World has an essay devoted to women in the Garden of Epicurus. In it, Pamela Gordon argues that most of the women that we know of were in the first generation of the Garden, although the practice survived for hundreds of years.179 Unfortunately, she does not consider how this tradition relates to Diogenes of Oenoanda, who wrote a letter to his mother explaining how she should practice Epicurean philosophy. 180 Fragment nine of David Konstan’s translation of Philodemus: On Frank Criticism preserves a teaching of Leontion without comment. Recent examples that specifically address popular Hellenistic philosophy in 1 Corinthians do not fare better than classical studies.181 For example, John T. Fitzgerald’s study of the quite popular teaching concerning hardships that the ideal teacher overcomes (fear of death, loss of wealth, exile, loss of honor, etc.) gives attention to Stoic elements in 1 Cor. 4:7-13 but does not address how philosophically educated women would
179
Pamela Gordon, “Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the School of Epicurus,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, ed. Dirk Obbink, John T. Fitzgerald and Glenn S. Holland, NovTSupp 111 (Boston: Brill, 2004), 241. 180
C. W. Chilton, Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Fragments (London: Oxford University Press, 1971). Fragment 52 preserves a letter of Epicurus to his mother, in which he asks her to interact with his philosophy, see Chilton, Diogenes, 19; 108-13; see especially 130, ‘the author is emphasizing the necessity of pursuing philosophy in order to dispel fear (of death and/or the gods?) and attain perfect happiness.” 181
Robert S. Dutch, The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education and Community Conflict in Graeco-Roman Context (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
57 respond to this content.182 Stanley Stowers discusses Paul’s usage of self-mastery (1 Cor. 7:9; 9:25) and the lack of it (1 Cor. 7:5), without reference to how the same principles are applied to women in Seneca and Musonius Rufus.183 The nature of Paul’s application of self-control in his usage of the agon motif (1 Cor. 9:24-7) has received attention by Pfitzner and Brändl, and again women’s interpretation of the text is not addressed.184 Robert Grant has identified some philosophical terms in 1 Corinthians that pertain to women: the use of “shameful” and “beneficial” in 1 Cor. 11:5-6 (head-coverings and the participation of women in worship) and 14:35 (women speaking in church). Grant, however, does not consider how philosophically educated women might engage 1 Cor 11-14. He does note that the form and content of the marriage regulations in 1 Cor 7 have important parallels to Diogenes Laertius 6.29 and Epictetus, Diss 3.24.60; 6.1.159. Grant also concludes that Paul’s use of “conscious scruples” in 1 Cor. 10:27-9 is not specifically Stoic, “but it is part of the baggage carried by an ordinary educated GrecoRoman man.”185 Jeffery Asher has traced the concept of the anthropogenic metaphor (sowing as the origin of humanity) in 1 Cor. 15:42-44 through Greco-Roman thought, 182
The importance of self-sufficiency in the Corinthian correspondence is made evident by John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 117-84. 183
Stanley Stowers, “Paul and Self-Mastery,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (New York: Trinity Press International, 2003), 534. 184
Victor Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Martin Brändl, Der Agon bei Paulus: Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik (Tübingen: Möhr Siebeck, 2006). 185
Robert M. Grant, 'Hellenistic Elements in 1 Corinthians,' in Early Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughhy, ed. A. Wikgren (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), 62.
58 concluding that Paul’s *male* readers would have been familiar with the metaphor that is common in mythology and philosophy. 186 While these studies make significant contributions to understanding Paul and his sources in their Hellenistic context, the question of how philosophically educated women would interact with these texts remains unasked. One possible reason for this unasked question may be due to the disinterest in philosophically educated women in classical scholarship. However, another important work on women in the Corinthian church requires special attention.
The Corinthian Women Prophets and the Philosophically Educated Women Antionette Wire’s valuable work The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric addresses the activity of women prophets in the Corinthian church. Wire describes the women prophets as poor, uneducated, and lowborn, but rising in status and builds an interpretation of 1 Corinthians with an interest in these women. In contrast to the women prophets, Paul held a higher status before he preached the gospel; however, at the time of writing 1 Corinthians, he was in a state of status loss. The rising status of the Corinthian women stems from the wisdom and power attributed to them by the community because of their roles as prophets in the church.187 Wire argues that the women prophets are among “the many” that Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 1:26, and those that Paul mentions as owning homes were most likely artisans. Wire also writes, “A society where women are not found in schools, courts, or councils could not
186
“SPEIRETAI: Paul’s Anthopogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44,” JBL 120, no. 1 (2001): 101-22. 187
Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 71.
59 have produce many learned or politically powerful women for religious recruitment.”188 I will argue that there indeed were women found in schools, courts, and active in poetry, philosophy, and other intellectual arts. Furthermore, philosophical schools that were traditionally open to the involvement of women were active in Corinth in the first century, and were available for religious recruitment. Because of these contexts, we should consider how such women would read the text. The most important departure from Wire is that this dissertation examines 1 Corinthians with an interest in how two philosophically educated patronesses would read the text. All of our texts overlap: this dissertation interprets 1 Corinthians 1-4, Paul’s teachings on divorce and marriage in chapter 7, and the agon motif in chapter 9. As a secondary focus, other issues in 1 Corinthians will be examined for what they can say about philosophically educated women and their contexts: the situation relating to the step-mother and step-son in chapter 5, lawsuits in chapter 6, the nature of household worship, and head-coverings. These texts of couse say different things about women prophets. When Wire examines these issues, she does so with an interest in what these texts have to say about her women prophets within their social contexts. Our interest will be in how higher status philosophically educated women would read the same texts, and what is true for women prophets may not be true for philosophically educated women: they are two different groups of women who experience and interact with the text differently. Therefore, there are many points of agreement and disagreement between this
188
Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 63, then on page 76 she says that the appearance of women in courts is rare.
60 dissertation and Wire’s work because they both address women in 1 Corinthians, the most significant of which will be noted as they appear below in chapters 5, 6, and 7. In this dissertation, I identify “philosophically educated women” as women who have come into contact with enough philosophical teaching from any school to identify and interact with components of 1 Corinthians which have points of connection with basic tenents of Greco-Roman philosophy. “Women philosophers” were of course “philosophically educated women,” but male philosophers were obviously not. That is the only distinction that I make between “philosophically educated women” and male philosophers. I use the term “philosophically educated women” because they are the topic of the dissertation and the focus of my argument. That is, I am not arguing that women philosophers were in the Corinthian community, and if that were the case, the term “women philosophers” would replace “philosophically educated women.” On that note, it is very important to clarify that the New Testament was ridiculed by many Roman thinkers: the philosopher Celsus (2nd CE),189 Porphyry the neo-Platonist, Macarius Magnes the neo-Platonist (4th CE), Sossianus Hierocles (a Roman aristocrat, fl. early 4th CE) and Julian the neo-Platonist (emperor, 331-363). Christianity was also criticized by Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE), Lucian (125-80 CE), and Galen (c. 129-217 CE).190 Because these thinkers rejected Christianity based on their understanding of Greek and Roman philosophy, we can expect women philosophers representing these schools 189
Precise school is unclear, see John Granger Cook, Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 17-26. 190
Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); John Granger Cook, Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians from Claudius to Hadrian, WUNT 261 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
61 would also be hostile to Paul’s message. It is safe to assume that a woman philosopher would not be attracted to Christianity, but a philosophically educated woman who has broad intellectual intrests could identify with and engage popular philosophical teachings embedded in Paul’s teachings and letters.
Moving Forward In this dissertation, I will show that the history of the involvement of women in philosophy, according to a variety of important sources, indicates that a wide variety of women could have received some degree of philosophical education: elite women, freedwomen, wives and daughters of traveling philosophers, and slaves. I will argue that the least that we could expect these women to know well comprises three themes: patronage, marriage and family, and self-sufficiency. First, I will demonstrate that friendship and patronage are common in philosophical writings addressed to and written by women and are important for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Second, each philosophical school had teachings related to family life. Finally, each school had some concept of the ideal teacher that was characterized by some level of self-control. The Cynic-Stoic doctrine of self-sufficiency, along with its most common usage in the agon motif, stands at the intersection of the most popular philosophies in the first century. The agon motif is the common athletic metaphor that philosophers used to explain the importance of training oneself to have adequate mental and physical self-control to live the good life that is marked by self-sufficiency. I will address the question of how philosophically educated women familiar with these four themes would interact with 1 Corinthians concerning the presentation of Paul as ideal teacher, self-sufficiency and
62 Paul’s apostleship, Paul’s use of friendship language, and his teachings on marriage and family life. In chapters two and three, I will review the history of women in philosophy as described in ancient sources and reconstruct what education we could expect such women to have. Chapter four will describe the state of philosophy in Corinth in the early part of the first century and its significance for understanding 1 Corinthians as well as discuss and evaluate the place of women among the Corinthian believers. Chapters five, six, and seven will address the results of chapters two, three, and four in light of how philosophically educated women might engage Paul’s material that has parallels in the most popular philosophical teachings: (1) friendship and patronage and Paul’s relationships with people who were connected to the patronage systems in Corinth, (2) teachings concerning marriage that Paul applies to worship regulations, and (3) selfsufficiency and Paul’s usage of the agon motif. The final chapter will review the work as a whole, illustrating the significance of philosophically women interacting with certain elements of popular moral philosophy employed by Paul in 1 Corinthians.
63
CHAPTER 2: EDUCATED WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
This dissertation approaches three major elements in 1 Corinthians in light of what can be known about philosophically educated women in the ancient world. Many New Testament scholars have already identified strong relationships and parallels between Pauline thought and ancient philosophies. The ongoing Corpus Hellenisticum project has focused on the Stoic Hierocles and the neo-Pythagorean pseudepigraphon, but its contributors have not considered how philosophically educated women would have read 1 Corinthians. Similarly, the members of the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section of SBL and other scholars who have found parallels to Paul in Pythagorean, Platonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism have not addressed this question. The histories of philosophically educated women are severely marginalized in classical scholarship. In chapters two and three, I will review the histories of philosophically educated women in both Greece and Rome. It is important to consider the women philosophers of the classical period because thinkers of the Roman period refer to these women as examples and inspiration for women of their time. I will argue that the histories of philosophically educated women indicate a strong tradition of the involvement of women in every school of popular philosophy which NT scholars have found useful for interpreting Paul: (neo-)Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. I will also argue that the tradition indicates that women from a broad
64 social background had access to philosophy: female teachers who were poor, women who were married or related to poor teachers, elite women who were educated as girls, and elite patronesses who supported philosophers and could bring teachers into their homes. In this chapter I will discuss the education of women; in chapter three the active involvement of women in philosophy.
Educated Women in the Ancient Greece and Rome The evidence for the education of women needs to be addressed in the context of education in general, and the scope of this chapter requires a brief discussion of early Greek education as well as education during the Roman period.191 These next two chapters will prepare for the subsequent discussion of 1 Corinthians by examining the education of women in the ancient world. Considering that women were involved in all other aspects of Greek and Roman education, we can expect that some women would receive some education in philosophy. The female students and teachers of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle for example, should be contextualized in the early Greek art and papyri that testify to the education of women during those time periods. Similarly, the later traditions of the involvement of women in philosophy as students and teachers can be contextualized in monuments, statues, and letters written to and by women during the Roman period. In this chapter, I will discuss the involvement of women in every
191
E. W. Bower, “Some Technical Terms in Roman Education,” Hermes 89, no. 4 (1961): 462-477; Alan D. Booth, “Litterator,” Hermes 109, no. 3 (1981): 371-378; J. J. Eyre, “Roman Education in the Late Republic and Early Empire,” G&R 2nd ser. 10, no. 1 (1963): 47-59; Felix Reichmann, “The Book Trade at the Time of the Roman Empire,” The Library Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1938): 40-7; Robert A. Kaster, “Notes on “Primary” and “Secondary” Schools in Late Antiquity,” TAPA 113, (1983): 323-346.
65 form of education: primarily medicine, writing, and poetry [which may require literacy], and secondarily dance, athletics, oratory, and music [which does not require literacy], and finally their participation in philosophy. A word of caution is needed at this juncture: the historical record is partial and frequently more interested in men than women. Of necessity, our approach will therefore be wide-ranging and eclectic. Nevertheless, a picture emerges of women educated in various disciplines and for a range of tasks. I will ask several questions of this large body of research. First, what is the reliability of the historical existence of philosophically educated women? In other words, how historically reliable are the ancient witnesses, both epigraphic and in some cases, portraits and depictions of education concerning philosophically educated women? Secondly, what did these women know and how did they learn? The questions, of course, overlap, and I will attempt to untangle it in such a way that demonstrates that philosophically educated women would have heard and interacted with 1 Corinthians.
The Educated Woman at Work: Doctors, Scribes, and Merchants Education during the Greek and Roman periods can be measured in two interwoven ways: evidence for literacy, and evidence of learning and teaching. 192 We know that the ability to read and write may not include education in science, logic, 192
S. Cole, “Could Greek Women Read and Write?,” in Reflections of Women in Antiquity, ed. Helene P. Foley (New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1981), 219–45; Emily A. Hemelrijk, Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Élite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (London: Routledge, 1999); A. Ellis Hanson, “Ancient Illiteracy,” in Literacy in the Ancient World, ed. M. Beard et al. (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1991), 159–98, elaborates on this point, also made in W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 32-3; Sarah Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt from Alexandria to Cleopatra (New York: Schocken Books, 1984), 59-72.
66 mathematics, and philosophy. Some philosophers and other thinkers could not read or write, having memorized texts that were read to them, and employed literate slaves or freedpersons to read and write for them. William Harris argues, along with several other scholars, that literacy in the Greek and Roman worlds can be divided into three types: literacy, semi-literacy, and illiteracy. 193 Literacy is described as the full literacy of a portion of the (typically) elite – they were able to read literature and philosophy. An example of a fully literate woman is the first century historian Pamphila of Epidaurus. She is a scholar who is said to have produced 33 books on Greek history (of which 11 fragments remain), and showed an interest in Greek historians, philosophers, and politicians.194 Like other philosophically educated women, she learned from a family member and then practiced philosophy herself. One fragment of her writing indicates that she learned from her husband, but Plant points out that she must have also had access to a great library, and produced much of her work on her own.195 Semi-literacy is a quite broad category into which most literate people in the ancient world fit: it was the level of literacy that was required of artisans to do their jobs, including but not limited to accounting, recording inventory, and writing receipts, and even the person who could read graffiti or make a single letter on an ostraca to vote. The great majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate. 193
For bibliography see Harris, Ancient Literacy, 7-8, 327-8. These levels of literacy are a common theme in the book, and Harris provides many examples. Cf., Nicholas Hornfall, “Statistics or State of Mind,” in Literacy in the Roman World, ed. Mary Beard, et al. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1991): 59-76. 194
Diog. Laert. 1.24, 68, 76, 90, 98, 2.24; 3.23, 5.36; Aul. Gell. 15.23 and Phot. Bibl. Library, cod. 175, 119. 195
Plant, Women Writers, 127.
67 Literacy is most clearly associated with occupations that required some literacy. 196 Some level of literacy is required of scribes, medical practitioners (doctors, midwives, and nurses), and merchants; women served in all of these capacities.197 Female scribes in the ancient world were mostly of the lower class, serving as slaves or freedpersons in a household or in a public setting.198 K. Haines-Eitzen has found eleven female scribes in CIL, all of them dated 1st BCE to 2nd CE. Some examples are useful to mention: In these inscriptions we meet with Hapate, a shorthand writer of Greek (notariae Grece) who lived twenty-five years (CIL 6.33892); Corinna, who was a storeroom clerk or scribe, cell(ariae) libr(ariae) (CIL 6.3979); and Tyche, Herma, and Plaetoriae, all three of whom are identified as amanuenses (CIL 6.9541; CIL 6.7373; CIL 6.9542). We also find four women who are identified by the title
196
See note 185; cf., William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker, eds., Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 197
For women in the workplace, see Susan Treggiari, “Jobs for Women,” AJAH 1 (1976) 76-104; Treggiari, “Lower Class in the Roman Economy,” Florilegium 1 (1979): 65-86; Natalie Kampen, Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia (Berlin: Mann, 1981); Riet Van Bremen, “Women and Wealth,” in Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron and A. Amelie Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983): 223-241. 198
Kenneth Quinn, “The Poet and his Audience in the Augustan Age,” ANRW 2.30.1 (1982): 75– 180; Thomas Keith Dix, “Private and Public Libraries at Rome in the First Century B.C.: A Preliminary Study in the History of Roman Libraries” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1986); Lorne Bruce, “Palace and Villa Libraries from Augustus to Hadrian,” Journal of Library History 21 (1986): 510–52. For a helpful summary of the literary evidence for bookshops in Roman antiquity see Raymond J. Starr, “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World,” CQ 37 (1987): 213–23; K. HainesEitzen, “Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature” (Ph. D. diss. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1997); “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing:’ Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity,” JECS 6 (1998): 629–46.
68 libraria, a term that not only denoted a clerk or secretary, but also more specifically a literary copyist.199 These scribes were not mindless copyists:200 they interacted with the text, correcting grammatical and syntactical errors, and sometimes even revising the texts to their liking.201 Furthermore, female scribes sometimes worked for female patrons: …a certain Grapte is identified in one inscription as the amanuensis of Egnatia Maximilla—a woman who, according to Tacitus, accompanied her husband, Glitius Gallus, when he was exiled by Nero. Furthermore, we know that this Egnatia Maximilla had a substantial personal fortune; it should not be surprising, therefore, that she had her own personal amanuensis. 202 Haines-Eitzen’s analysis of the inscriptions brings several important points to light. Most of the female scribes were lower class slaves or freedpersons, all of them were in urban contexts, were educated at home or from an apprenticeship, and were typically supported by patrons or patronesses who were wealthy. Rebecca Fleming has recently analyzed the evidence relating to female physicians in the ancient world, concluding that several female physicians from all around the Mediterranean were literate and contributed to medical knowledge through writing in the
199
Her list is 6.3979, 7373, 8882, 9301, 9525, 9540, 9541, 9542, 33892, 37757, 37802, “Scribes,” 634, n. 16. Cf., Natalie Kampen, Image and Status, 118; Mary Lefkowitz and Fant, Woman’s Life, 223; Treggiari, “Jobs,” 76-104. 200
S. A. Goudsmit, “An Illiterate Scribe,” AJA 78, no. 1 (1974): 78.
201
M. McDonnell, “Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome,” CQ 46 (1996): 469–91. 202
Haines-Eitzen, “Scribes,” 635; Tac. Ann. 15.71
69 Roman period.203 Two examples are instructive of the role that educated women played in the practice of medicine: The funerary stele of ‘Mousa, physician, daughter of Agathocles’, from Hellenistic Byzantium, for example, shows her holding a book-roll (as do a handful of representations of male physicians); and, in early imperial Rome, the freedwoman Naevia Clara is labeled ‘physician and scholar’ (medica philologa) on the stele that commemorates both her and her husband L. Naevius, also a freedman, and ‘physician and surgeon’ (medicus chirurgus).204 There are a few monuments that attest to female doctors: 0Antioxij Diodo/to[u] Tlwij marturhqei= sa u9po th=j Tlwe/wn Boulh=j kai tou= dhmou e0pi th= peri thn i0atrikhn texnhn e0npeiri/a e1sthsen ton a0ndria/nta e9auth=j. Antiochis, daughter of Diodotus, of Tlos, marked by the council and people of Tlos for her achievement in the medical art, erected this statue of herself. 205 The Empiricist Heraclides of Taras addresses Antiochis as a colleague in a letter.206 Soranus of Ephesus (1st century CE) writes that the midwife should be trained in theory 203
Rebecca Flemming, “Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World,” CQ 57, no. 1 (2007): 257-279; there is a useful bibliography available online at http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/GenSxl.html, accessed Feb. 6, 2012. 204
Flemming, “Women,” 260. Cf., E. Pfuhl and H. Mobius, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1977), 1.151 (no. 467): Mou=sa /Agaqokle/ouj i0atrei/nh (Samama [n. 2], no. 310); and for Naevia see Flemming, “Writing,” (no. 2), 386 (no. 9). Cf., A. Hillert, Antike Arztedarstellungen (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1990). 205
Greek text in H. W. Pleket, Epigraphica II: Texts on the Social History of the Greek World (Leiden: Brill, 1969), no. 12; cf., no. 20. Translation by Holt N. Parker, who gives a long interpretation of this inscription in the context of other female patrons in “Women Doctors in Greece, Rome, and the Byzantine Empire,” in Women Healers and Physicians: Climbing a Long Hill, ed. Lilian R. Furst (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1997), 131-50. Parker says that there are forty such inscriptions dedicated to female doctors, cf., Vivian Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London: Routledge, 2005), 197-8. An alternative translation is in Lefkowitz and Fant, “Women’s Life,” 369.
70 by reading books and by practice. 207 How these women learned medicine is important to my argument. Antiochis is referenced in Galen as an authority for various remedies (12.691 and 13.250, 13.341).208 Most likely, her father taught her the art of medicine. Antiochis’s father, Diodotus, is almost certainly the notable physician Diodotus mentioned in Dioscorides.209 The father teaching sons or daughters his craft could be indicative of the poor artisan, whereas the wealthier doctors could learn from books, slaves, or famous doctors. Soranas describes the qualifications of an ideal midwife, which includes literacy and a quick intellect: e0pith&deioj de/ e0stin h( gramma&twn e0nto&j, a)gxi/nouj, mnh&mwn, filo&ponoj, ko&smioj kai kata_ to_ koino_n a)parempo&distoj tai=j ai0sqh&sesin, a)rtimelh&j, eu1tonoj, w(j d’ e 1 n i o i le/gousin kai makrou_j kai leptou_j e1xousa kai tou_j tw~n xeirw~n daktu&louj kai u(pestalko&taj tai=j r(acin tou_j o1nuxaj. gramma&twn men e0nto&j ei]nai, i3na kai dia_ qewri/aj th_n te/xnhn i0sxu&sh paralabei=n: a)gxi/nouj de pro_j to_ r(a di/wj toi=j legome/noij kai ginome/noij parakolouqei=n: mnh&mwn de/, i3na kai tw~n paradidome/nwn a)pokrath ~ maqhma&twn ma&qhsij ga_r e0k mnh&mhj gi/netai kai katalh&yewj: A suitable person will be literate, have her wits about her, possessed of a good memory, loving work, respectable and generally not unduly handicapped as regards 206
K. Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (1930; 2nd ed 1975); F. Kudlien, “Medical Education in Classical Antiquity,” in The History of Medical Education, ed. C.D. O’Malley (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), 34 n.70. 207
Sor. Gyn. 1.3-4. A. Ellis Hanson and M. H. Green, “Soranus: methodicorum princeps,”ANRW 2.37.2, 968–1075, and also Flemming, “Writing,” n. 2. 208
The 1st CE doctor Cleopatra the Physician was also used extensively by Galen, 12.235, 381, 405, 446. Plant notes that she is known to Titus Statilius Crito (2 nd CE), Galen (3rd CE), Aëtus of Amida, 8.6 (6th CE), Paulus of Aegina 3.2.1 (7th CE), and John Tzetes (17th CE). Nothing is known concerning her biography. 209
Dioscorides, 1Pr.5; John Scarborough and Vivian Nutton, “The Preface of Discorides’ Materia Medica: Introducion, Translation, and Commentary,” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia 4 (1982): 187-227.
71 her senses, sound of limb, robust, and according to some people, endowed with long slim fingers and short nails at her fingertips. She must be literate in order to be able to comprehend the art through theory too; she must have her wits about her so that she may easily follow what is said and what is happening; she must have a good memory to retain the imparted instructions (for knowledge arises from memory of what has been grasped). 210 Generally speaking, most ancient medical practitioners were of lower social status, and doctors were often viewed as untrustworthy and unreliable. 211 However, some higher status writers remember women doctors who were, at least in their opinion, gifted healers. Galen (c. 129-217 CE) attributes many remedies to women, some of which were written by women.212 Other writers refer to the contributions of women for their understanding of medicine: Pliny the Elder (NH 28.38, 28.83, 28.81, 20.226), pseudoGalen (19.767), and Aetius (16.12).213 Other women doctors are attested in ancient sources: Philinna of Thessaly, Salpe of Lesbos (Plin. HN 28.7), Laïs of Corinth (late 1st
210
Soranus, Soranus’ Gynecology, trans. Owsei Temkin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), 5. 211
Darrell W. Amundsen presents several well-known references from Greek and Roman writers concerning the mistrust for doctors in ancient times, famous for killing or extorting people using the knife or poisons, “The Liability of the Physician in Roman Law,” in International Symposium on Society, Medicine, and the Law, ed. H. Karplus (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973), 17-31. S. L. Mohler suggests that most doctors in the ancient world were freedmen, and slave boys were their apprentices, “Slave Education in the Roman Empire,” TAPA 71 (1940), 265 n. 6. Laws concerning doctors were often combined with supersticions concerning magic, Clyde Pharr, “The Interdiction of Magic in Roman Law,” TAPA 63 (1932): 269-95. 212
From Fleming, “Writing,” 265: Gal. Comp. med. loc. 7.2, 4 and 8.3 (13.58, 85 and 143 K): Origenia’s remedies for coughs, bringing up blood, and for the stomach; Comp. med. loc. 9.2 (13.244 K): Eugerasia’s remedy for the spleen; Comp. med. loc. 9.6 (13.310 and 311 K): Samithra’s anal application and Xanthite’s very useful hemorrhoids remedy; Comp. med. gen. 5.13 (13.840): Maia’s excellent dry application for callused and cracked skin, Scrib. Larg. Comp. 59, 60, 70, 271. 213
Plant, Women Writers, 110-24.
72 CE, Plin. HN 28.23; Plut. Nic. 15), Olympias of Thebes (1st CE, Plin. HN 28.77), and Sotira (1st CE, Plin. HN 28.23); Elephantine (1st CE, Mart. 12.43.4; Suet. Tib. 43.2; Gal. 12:416; Plin. HN 28.81). Women learning medicine from a family member (at least in part) reflects the fact that while there were “ancient medical schools” in Cos, Cnidus, Alexandria, Rome, Pergamon, Symrna, and Ephesus, most doctors learned medicine in an apprenticeship to a member of the family (a father or spouse) or one’s master (whether the student is a male or female slave). The physician Glycon honored his wife Panthea, also a physician, with the inscription, “[you] raised high our common fame in healing – though you were a woman you were not behind me in skill.”214 Restituta (Rome, 1st CE) learned medicine as a freedwoman or slave under her patron,215 and Aurelia Alexandria Zosime and Auguste most likely learned from their husbands (who are mentioned in their inscriptions). There may even be an example of a woman teaching another woman medicine. Terentia Prima is known as a medica in Rome in the first or second century CE, and she perhaps had a freedwoman apprentice.216 Minucia Asste, also a medica, may 214
Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, no. 175; Pleket, Epigraphica, no. 20. James Malcolm Arlandson situates this inscription with other roles that lesser class women served which required some level of literacy, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 48. 215
IG 14.1751 = CIG 6604 = IGRR 1.283 = IGUR 645. Herman Gummerus, Der Ärztestand im Römischen Reiche nach den Inschriften (Helsinki: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1992), no. 146; J. Korpela, Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 166. 216
CIL VI.9616. Gummerus, Ärztestand, no.113. Korpela, Medizinalpersonal, no. 203. Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, no. 371. For interpretation see Étienne Pivert de Senancour, Libres méditations, 3rd ed, intro. et comm. Béatrice Le Gall, Textes littéraires français 172 (Genève: Droz, 1970), 128 no. 3 and Natalie Kampen, Image and Status: Women Working in Ostia (Berlin: Mann, 1981), 116 n. 40.
73 have learned medicine from her matron.217 This is not unlike how women and men would learn philosophy (and indeed, the histories of medicine and philosophy significantly overlap). The medical historian Plino Prioreschi writes, “medicine did not develop by itself, in a vacuum, on the basis of purely empirical evidence, but was first an integral part of philosophy.”218 In both the Greek219 and Roman220 periods, women served other vocations that required some level of literacy and education. Three fourth century BCE inscriptions mention female grocers: Mania,221 Thraitta,222 and Parthenia.223 A mid-second century CE relief shows a butcher at work, with his wife seated, keeping the books.224 Two late
217
Rome 1st BCE or 1st CE. CIL 6.9615 (33812); Gummerus, Ärztestand, no. 112; Korpela, Medizinalpersonal, no. 43. 218
Plino Prioreschi, A History of Medicine, 2nd ed. (Omaha: Horatius, 1996), 2:204; Philip J. Van der Eilk has contributed many essays concerning this interrelationship in his book Medicine and Philosophy: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, the Soul, Health and Disease (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 219
Susan I. Rotroff and Robert D. Lamberton, Women in the Agora (Athens: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2006). 220
Francis Bernstein, “Pompeian Women,” in The World of Pompeii, ed. John J. Dobbins and Pedar W. Foss (London: Routledge, 2007), 526-37. 221
IG 3.387.G. Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 324.
222
D. M. Lewis, “Attic Manumissions,” Hesperia 28 (1959), 203-8. Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 329. 223
IG 3.3.68, 69. Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 337. Cf., Mary R. Lefkowitz, “Wives and Husbands,” G&R, 2nd ser. 30, no. 1 (1983): 44. 224
Dresden, Staatliche Kuntstsammlungen, Inv. ZV 44. Eve D’Ambra, Roman Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 137.
74 second century CE reliefs found at Ostia depict women selling a wide variety of items.225 A grocer in Greek or Roman times would have to manage several relationships: their many wholesalers, customers, and their patron who may lease a place to sell at the markets. Some sizable transactions would likely have been written for bookkeeping and legal reasons.226
The Educated Woman: Greek and Roman Poets The education of women in the ancient world is demonstrated most clearly in poetry.227 Greek and Roman female poets were quite popular in ancient life, and the traditions related to female poets are as old as Homer.228 Sappho of Lesbos is perhaps most intriguing because she is the most ancient female poet and enjoys enduring popularity. 229 In her lifetime, it is likely that she ran a school of poetry for girls.230 Her
225
Ostia, Museo Ostiense, inv. 134 and 198. There is also a relief of a successful shoemaker in Ostia, CIL 14.supp.4698. Cf., Elaine Fantham, et al, Women in the Classical World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 378. 226
Harris, Ancient Literacy, 200.
227
For text, translation, and critical commentary on many of the poets mentioned in this section, see Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Epigrams: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); for the general context of poetry without a focus on women, particularly the competitive and symposium contexts, see Derek Collins, Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek Poetry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004). 228
Sylvia Barnard, “Hellenistic Women Poets,” CJ 73, no. 3 (1978): 204-13; Laurel Bowman, “The ‘Women’s Tradition’ in Greek Poetry,” Phoenix 58, no. 1/2 (2004): 1-27. 229
Sappho’s biographical information is preserved in P. Oxy. 1800 and the Suda, ‘Sappho;’ cf., OCD, “Sappho.” Bibliography and online text and translation for the Suda is available by Raphael Finkel et al, “Suda On Line: Byzantine Lexicography,” Suda On
75 poetry was cited by a wide variety of ancient poets, philosophers, and thinkers. 231 Maximus of Tyre says that Socrates learned of love from a foreigner: either Sappho of Lesbos (the poet = Pl. Phaedr. 230e, 235c) or from a woman from Mantinea (the philosopher Diotima = Pl. Symp. 201d).232 Ancient tradition links Sappho with Corinth: the first century BCE poet Antipater of Sidon tells us that Sappho died there (EG 3448). 233
Sappho’s popularity is demonstrated by her early and frequent depictions in art. She is found on ancient vases, coins, and mosaics. 234 Christodorus of Thebes (late 5th BCE, gymnasium Zuexippos, Constantinople), Cicero (Sialion, 4th BCE, Syracuse), Line: Byzantine Lexicography, April, 2007, http://www.stoa.org/sol//, accessed Feb 6, 2012. Aelian reckons Sappho among the Sages, Var. hist. 12.19. 230
Lefkowitz gives a thorough tradition of the life of Sappho as preserved in literary sources, Mary Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (London: Duckworth, 1981), 36-7 and 61-4; K. J. Dover critically analyzes the sources in Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 174-5; Jane McIntosh Snyder uncovers the various approaches in Sappho’s poetry, “Public Occasion and Private Passion in the Lyrics of Sappho of Lesbos,” in Women’s History and Ancient History, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 1-19. 231
David Robinson, Sappho and Her Influence (London: G. G. Harrap, 1924); Robert A. Greenberg, “‘Erotion,’ ‘Anactoria,’ and the Sapphic Passion,” Victorian Poetry 29, no. 1 (1991): 79-87. 232
Maximus of Tyre, 18.7.
233
Gisela M. A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks: Abridged and Revised by R.R.R. Smith (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), 194-6. Mary Lefkowitz gives a thorough tradition of the life of Sappho as preserved in literary sources, The Lives of the Greek Poets (London: Duckworth, 1981), 36-7 and 61-4; K. J. Dover critically analyzes the sources in Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 1745. Lefkowitz argues that the traditions concerning Sappho’s school are directly based on her poetry, 64. 234
96.
For art depicting Sappho, I am following Richter, Potraits of the Greeks, 194-
76 Antipater (1st BCE, Pergamon), indicate that statues were made of Sappho though none survive. 235 There are three painted vases from the fifth century BCE that depict Sappho in action, reciting her poetry or playing the lyre. Some coins dated in the first through the third centuries CE from Mytilene and Eresos are stamped with a likeness of Sappho, sometimes with an inscription. 236 While the context of most early Greek poetry was in competitions, Sappho’s performances were mostly restricted to the symposia.237 Although Sappho’s poems were compiled into nine books in antiquity, only one poem survives intact, and like so many other early figures, the remainder of our information comes from secondary sources that offer conflicting information.238 Sappho’s poetry is important for our understanding of
235
Christodorus in Anth. Pal. 2.69; Cic. Verr. 2.4.126; for Antipater, see M. Fränkel and C. Habicht, eds., Die Inschriften von Pergamon, Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1-2 (Berlin: Spemann, 1890-95), no. 198. 236
Richter, Potraits of the Greeks, 194.
237
W. J. Henderson, “Criteria in the Greek Lyric Contests,” Mnemosyne 42, no. 1 (1989): 28; cf., D. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 133-40. 238
While Sappho wrote in 6th-7th BCE, the popularity of her work is endearing. Plutarch comments on the value of her poetry in Mor. 397a and 406a. Several of the famous first century Latin poets either mention Sappho explicitly or rely on her work. Martial alludes to Sappho in Epigrams 7.69.9 and 10.35.15; Catullus 11.21-24, 51,62, and 65.19-24 and his usage of Lesbia rely on Sappho. Ovid applauds her in Ars amatoria 3.331; cf., the pseudo-Ovidian Epistle of Sappho to Phaon available in English in The Songs of Sappho, trans. Marion Mills Miller and David Moore Robinson (New York: Frank-Maurice, 1925). M. J. Edwards argues for her influence on Juvenal, “A Quotation of Sappho in Juvenal Satire 6,” Phoenix 45, no. 3 (1991): 255-7. Given the context of the Satire as seething with hatred for women, we should not consider this quotation as a compliment. Juvenal complains about the education of women in Satire 6: those conversant in Homer, Virgil, and many others.
77 ancient female sexualities, 239 but is especially valuable due to her clear distinction between the loved and beloved. 240 Sappho portrays a woman that is different from Aristotle’s view which would later become dominant in Western philosophy: women are only able to participate in life as a human being as a mutilated male striving for maleness. 241 According to Pausanias, Telesilla was a fifth century BCE warrior-poetess who was renowned for her lyric poetry and military prowess. Her military might is mentioned in Plutarch (46-120 BCE/CE, Mor. 245d-e) and Pausanias (fl. 2nd CE, 2.9-11), and her poetry is remembered also by several other writers. Eight tiny fragments of her poetry are extant.242 Snyder suggests that her poetry was composed for the singing by girls at festivals. 243 The popularity of Telesilla’s poetry is enduring – she is known from Eusebius of Caesarea (263-309 BCE, Chronicon, Olympiad 82.4), Antipater of Thessaloniki (fl. 15CE, Anth. Pal. 9. 26), Apollodoros (fl. late 1st BCE, Biblioteka 3.5.5), 239
The interpretation that Sappho addressed female sexualities may be a forced reconstruction. Her poetry was not interpreted as such in the classical period. Judith P. Hallett, “Sappho and Her Social Context: Sense and Sensuality,” Signs 4, no. 3 (1979): 447-64; Ellen Greene, “Apostrophe and Women’s Erotics in the Poetry of Sappho,” TAPA 124 (1994): 41-56. 240
Diane J. Rayor, Sappho’s Lyre: Archaic Lyric and Women Poets of Ancient Greece (Berkley: University of California Press, 1991). 241
Prudence Allen, The Concept of Woman: The Aristotelian Revolution 750BE1250CE (Montréal: Eden Press, 1985). 242
Euseb. Chron. 82. 4 [449 B.C.]; Maximus of Tyre, Dissertations 37.5; Heph. 11.2; Ath. 11. 437; 14.619b; Hesychius, Glossary, “beltiotas;” Julius Pollux, Onomastikon 2. 223; Scholiast on the Od. 13.289. The classical references are collected in translation by Professor John Paul Adams at www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/telesilla.html, accessed Feb 6, 2012. 243
Snyder, Lyre, 60.
78 and of course Plutarch (46-120 BCE/CE, Mor. 245d-e), Pausanias (fl. 2nd CE, 2.9-11), Maximus of Tyre (fl. 2nd CE, Anth. Pal. 37.5), and the Christian apologists Tatian (120180 CE, Ad. Gr. 33) and Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE, Strom. 4.19). Plutarch compliments the accomplishments of Telesilla: Ou)deno_j d’ h{tton e1ndoco&n e0sti tw~n koinh ~ diapepragme/nwn gunaicin e1rgwn o( pro_j Kleome/nh peri 1Argouj a)gw&n, o4n h)gwni/santo Telesi/llhj th~j poihtri/aj protreyame/nhj. tau&thn de/ fasin oi0ki/aj ou}san e0ndo&cou tw ~ de sw&mati noshmatikh_n ei0j qeou~ pe/myai peri u(giei/aj: kai xrhsqen au)th ~ Mou&saj qerapeu&ein, peiqome/nhn tw ~ qew ~ kai e0piqeme/nhn w )dh ~ kai a(rmoni/a tou~ te pa&qouj a)pallagh~nai taxu_ kai qauma&zesqai dia_ poihtikh_n u(po_ tw~n gunaikw~n. Of all the deeds performed by women for the community none is more famous than the struggle against Cleomenes for Argos, which the women carried out at the instigation of Telesilla the poetess. She, as they say, was the daughter of a famous house but sickly in body, and so she sent to the god to ask about health; and when an oracle was given her to cultivate the Muses, she followed the god’s advice, and by devoting herself to poetry and music she was quickly relieved of her trouble, and was greatly admired by the women for her poetic art.244 Pausanias writes that on top of Mount Coryphum there is a sanctuary of Artemis Coryphea, which Telesilla mentions in a poem. Pausanias relates the tradition concerning Telesilla that corresponds with Herodotus: u(per de to_ qe/atron 0Afrodi/thj e0stin i9ero&n, e1mprosqen de tou~ e3douj Tele/silla h( poih&sasa ta_ a 1smata e0pei/rgastai sth&lh : kai bibli/a men e0kei=na e1rriptai/ oi9 pro_j toi=j posi/n, au)th_ de e0j kra&noj o(ra ~ kate/xousa th ~ xeiri kai e0piti/qesqai th ~ kefalh ~ me/llousa. Above the theater is a sanctuary of Aphrodite, and before the image is a slab with a representation wrought on it in relief of Telesilla, the lyric poetess. Her books lie scattered at her feet, and she herself holds in her hand an helmet, which she is looking at and is about to place on her head. 245
244
Plut. Mor. 245c-e (Babbitt, LCL).
245
Paus. 2.20.8 (Jones and Ormerod, LCL). Reference to Herodotus 6.77.
79 Pausanius tells us that there was a monument to Telesilla that memorializes her intellect with a book and her military accomplishments with a helmet. 246 We should note, I think, that the educated woman and her military conquests are done in the guise of men. Like the female philosophers who come later, the female poets and their soldiers acting in the domain of men wear the clothing of men. Many female poets were active in the fourth century BCE. The most influential being Corinna, Erinna, and Nossis. Corinna of Tanagra enjoyed popularity in the ancient world, but she is notoriously difficult to date. The arguments have been for the late fifth century BCE (following Plutarch, Pausanias, and Aelian) 247 or the early third century (following critical examinations of the extant poetry). It is attractive to conclude that the early third century is more appropriate based on the nature of Corinna’s usage of what may be considered third century BCE Greek morphology and syntax.248 This would mean that Corrina’s claim to fame - her defeat of Pindar – is most likely not historical but a later tradition from readers who thought that her poetry was technically superior.249
246
For a discussion of the legendary nature of Telesilla's military victory, see Michael Piérart “The Common Oracle of the Milesians and the Argives (Hdt. 6.19 and 77),” in Herodotus and his World, ed. Peter Derow and Robert Parker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 275-96. 247
Plut., Mor. 347f-348a; Paus. 9.22.3. Ael. Var. hist. 13.25. Cf. also Eustath. ad Hom. Il. 326.43; Pind. Ol. 6.90. 248
M. L. West, “Corinna,” CQ, n.s., 20, no. 2 (1970): 277-287; Dee Lesser Clayman, “The Meaning of Corinna’s Veroi=a,” CQ, n.s., 28, no. 2 (1978): 396-7. West powerfully answers his opponents in “Dating Corinna,” CQ, n.s. 40, no. 2 (1990): 553557. 249
Gillian Clark, “Roman Women,” G&R, 2nd ser. 28, no. 2, Jubilee Year (1981): 193-212; 48cm high marble statue of Corinna in Richter, Portraits, pl.116. Pausanius (9.22.3) says that there was a portrait of her made; Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos
80 Citing the vocabulary, meter, style, and the fact that no fifth century writer mentions her, D. L. Page takes an agnostic approach for an exact date that is followed by Skinner and others.250 However, there survives a 48cm tall marble statuette of a woman reading from an open scroll with KORINNA inscribed on the base. Richter believes that the statuette has features that indicate it may be a copy from a fourth century piece, but it does not reflect the quality expected from a Silanion (as Tatian says in Oratorio ad Graecos 34.16).251 The counter-argument to the late dating for Corinna depends on the reliability of ancient sources. Pausanias (fl. 2nd CE) preserves contemporary traditions concerning Corinna that were popular in Tangra, and Plutarch those of Boeotia (being from there), and it seems unlikely that these witnesses would be so mistaken in such a short time after her supposed death, so the fifth century date seems more likely. 252 Pausanias tells us that he saw a memorial in the gymnasium depicting Corinna crowning herself in victory over Pindar, attributing the victory to her usage of the Doric dialect and her beauty (9.22.3).253 Corinna is remembered in the second century CE P.Oxy 2438.1-4 (Gallo 1968, 49), “according to Corinna and other poetesses [Pindar] was the son of Scopelinus; according 33) refers to a sculpture by Silanion. P. Oxy. 2438.1-4 mentions Corinna who gives biographical info concerning Pindar; cf., Ael. Var. hist. 13.25. 250
D. L. Page, “A Note on Corinna,” CQ, n.s. 7, no. 1 (1957): 109-112; Marilyn B. Skinner, “Corinna of Tanagra and Her Audience,” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 2, no. 1 (1983): 9-20. 251 252
Richter, Portraits, 156. Archibald Allen and Jiri Frel, “A Date for Corinna,” CJ 68, no. 1 (1972): 26-
30. 253
For women competing in poetry, see Lefkowitz, Greek Poets, 64-5.
81 to most poets he was the son of Daiphantus.”254 The Roman poets Propertius (b. between 54 and 47BCE, d. 2BCE), and Statius (c. 45-83CE) were also aware of Corinna. In praise of his beloved, Propertius (c. 50-15 BCE) compares her beauty to the beloved, referring to the poetry of Sappho, Corinna, and Erinna: nec me tam facies, quamvis sit candida, cepit (lilia non domina sint magis alba mea; ut Maeotica nix minio si certet Hibero, utque rosae puro lacte natant folia), nec de more comae per levia colla fluentes, non oculi, geminae, sidera nostra, faces, nec si qua Arabio lucet bombyce puella (non sum de nihilo blandus amator ego): quantum quod posito formose saltat Iaccho, egit ut euhantis dux Ariadna choros, et quantum, Aeolio cum temptat carmina plectro, par Aganippeae ludere docta lyrae; et sua cum antiquae committit scripta Corinnae, carmina quae quivis non putat aequa suis. It was not her face, bright as it is, that won me (lilies are not more white than my lady; as if Maeotic snows contended with the reds of Spain, or rose-petals swam in purest milk) nor her hair, ordered, flowing down her smooth neck, nor her eyes, twin fires, that are my starlight, nor the girl shining in Arabian silk (I am no lover flattering for nothing): but how beautifully she dances when the wine is set aside, like Ariadne taking the lead among the ecstatic cries of the Maenads, and how when she sets herself to sing in the Sapphic style, she plays with the skill of Aganippe’s lyre, and joins her verse to that of ancient Corinna, and thinks Erinna’s songs inferior to her own.255 The second most famous poetess from ancient Greece is Erinna, dated 353 BCE,256 at about the time that Socrates defined the goal of poetry as that which makes the soul of all people better:
254
Lefkowitz, Greek Poets, 62; I. Gallo, Una nuova biografia di Pindaro (P. Oxy. 2438) (Salerno: Di Giacomo, 1968). 255
Prop. 2.3.1-54 (Goold, LCL); Stat. Silv. 5.3.158 (his father taught the poetry of Corinna at Naples). 256
M. L. West, “Erinna,” ZPE 25 (1977), 95-119. An excellent reconstruction of her text is available in J. M. Edmonds, “P. S. I. 1090,” Mnemosyne 3rd ser. 6, no. 2 (1938): 195-203.
82 nu~n a!ra h(mei=j hu(rh&kamen r(htorikh&n tina pro_j dh~mon toiou~ton oi[on pai/dwn te o(mou~ kai gunaikw~n kai a)ndrw~n, kai dou&lwn kai e0leuqe/rwn, h$n ou) pa&nu a)ga&meqa: kolakikh_n ga_r au)th&n famen ei]nai. So now we have found a kind of rhetoric addressed to such a public as is compounded of children and women and men, and slaves as well as free; an art that we do not quite approve of, since we call it a flattering one.257 Antipater of Thessalonica (fl. 20 BC) listed her along with Sappho as one of the nine “early Muses.”258 Antipater writes, “Sappho exceeded Erinna in lyric poetry by just so much as Erinna exceeded Sappho in hexameters.”259 Her fame is a bit curious, because all traditions point to a low output: only one composition of 300 lines, the Distaff, and perhaps a few epigrams. Erinna is the subject of epigrams by Asclepiades of Amos (fl. 270 BCE, Anth. Pal. 7.11), Leonidas of Tarentum (c. 3rd BCE, Anth. Pal. 7.13), and Antipater of Sidon (fl. 2nd BCE, Anth. Pal. 7.713), and she is associated with Callimachus (c. 305-240 BCE) by Aristophanes (446-386 BCE): e0p’ 0Hri/nnh? de komw=ntej, pikroi kai chroi Kallima/xou proku/nej proud of your Erinna bitter and harsh barkers at Callimachus’s command.260 Errina’s “distaff” is the “spindle of the Fates,” and this imagery could speak to her life as a woman: the expected doing of domestic duties and lamenting the early death of her
257
Pl. Gorg. 502d (Lamb, LCL).
258
Anth. Pal. 9.26.
259
Anth. Pal. 9.190 (Paton, LCL).
260
Anth. Pal. 2.322.3-4 (Paton, LCL). Translation by A. Sydenham, F. Gow, D. L. Page, eds. The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams. 2 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 1:91. Cf., Snyder, Women and the Lyre, 86-91.
83 beloved, and in the case of the inspired, the writing of poetry. However, it should be noted that the two common metaphors for the doing of poetry are carpentry and weaving.261 For Erinna, her inspiration was the spindle of the Fates; for others it was the Muses or the E1rwtej. 262 Like Corinna, the date of Erinna is in dispute.263 The sources used to date Erinna are the traditions in the Anthology, Eusebius, Tatian, and the Suda as well as the critical analyses of poetry attributed to her.264 West has argued that a girl on an island in the fourth century BCE could not have had the education to write such sophisticated poetry, and concludes that she did not even exist.265 The analyses of Gow and Page date Erinna in the third century, and Donado dates her in the late fifth or early fourth century.266 The poetry of Errina is indeed complex: Marilyn Skinner has demonstrated that Erinna used a prototype from the Illiad. Erinna’s frequent cries of misery follow a specific type: The impassioned wailing of Briseis over the fallen Patroclus, of Hector’s wife seeing his corpse dragged by Achilles, and of Andromache, Hecuba and Helen at
261
For carpentry see Pind. Pyth. 3.113, Paus. 10.5.8; for weaving see Bacchyl. 5.9-10, 19.8. Cf., Gregory Nagy, “The ‘Professional Muse’ and Models of Prestige in Ancient Greece,” Cultural Critique 12 (1989): 133-143. 262
Averil Cameron and Alan Cameron, “Erinna’s Distaff,” CQ n.s. 19, no. 2 (1969): 286. 263
Giuseppe Giangrande, “An Epigram of Erinna,” CR, n.s. 19, no. 1 (1969): 1-3.
264
She is also known in Plin. HN 34.57-58 and Meleager of Gadara in Anth. Pal.
265
West, “Erinna,” 117-8.
4.1.12.
266
Gow and Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 2.281. Donado, “Cronologia de Erinna,” Emerita 41 (1973): 349-6.
84 Hector’s wake are all artistic recreations of the goos, the dirge ordinarily chanted at the prothesis by the nearest female relations of the deceased. 267 While West has argued that Erinna is a literary construct, Sarah Pomeroy has demonstrated from terracotta and inscriptions that the education of women in fourth century Greece was improving, providing an historical plausibility of her existence.268 Furthermore, Pomeroy notes that Errina’s hometown of Teos has epigraphic evidence of educated women. 269 Pomeroy surmises that the emphasis on the distaff is rooted in the historical fact that wealthier educated women of this time period were expected to spend at least a little time weaving. She compares the tradition of Erinna with the story of Hipparchia, who when she studied Cynicism, was asked why she was not spending a little time weaving.270 Marilyn B. Arthur notes that while Erinna claims in her poem that she was nineteen years old when she composed it, she could have cast herself as a young
267
Marilyn B. Skinner, “Briseis, the Trojan Women, and Erinna,” CW 75, no. 5 (1982): 265-269 268
Pomeroy, “Technikai kai mousikai,” 51-68.
269
Citing SIG3 578 (2nd BCE). M. M. Austin notes that despite Pomeroy’s point, SIG3 578 does not explicitly exclude girls, but neither does it explicitly include the education of girls, The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest: a selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 262. 270
Sarah B. Pomeroy, “Supplementary Notes on Erinna,” ZPE 32 (1978): 20; Diog. Laert. 6.97-8.
85 woman when actually she could have been much older.271 Arthur also notes that Greek vases of the period depict girls reading from scrolls.272 Anyte of Tegea also wrote at the beginning of the third century BCE, and is recognized as the creator of the pastoral epigram. The Greek Anthology preserves about twenty of her epigrams that have mostly women, children, or animal subjects. I. M. Plant suggests that Anyte herself published a book of her poetry.273 Nossis of Locri in Italy lived about the same time and imitated Sappho, writing to women concerning women. 274 Marilyn B. Skinner convincingly suggested that Nossis is from an aristocratic family. 275 In one of her poems (Anth. Pal. 6.265), Nossis claims to be part of the elite women who present linen to Hera, which could be parallel to the elite women in Athens who present Athena with a woven peplos. Like other educated women, Nossis gives us a clue as to her education: she names her mother as her teacher.276 As a
271
Marylin B. Arthur, “The Tortoise and the Mirror: Erinna PSI 1090,” CW 74, no. 2, Symbolism in Greek Poetry (1980): 53-65. 272
H.R. Immerwahr, “Book Rolls on Attic Vases,” in Festschrift Ullman I, ed. C. Henderson (Rome: Ed. di storia e letteratura, 1964), 27; and cf. Immerwahr, “More Book Rolls and Attic Vases,” AK 16 (1973) 143-47. 273
Plant, Women Writers, 56.
274
Snyder, Woman and the Lyre, 77-84.
275
Marilyn B. Skinner, “Nossis Thēlyglōssos,” in Women’s History and Ancient History, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press), 23. 276
Marilyn B. Skinner, “Sapphic Nossis,” Arethusa 22, no. 1 (1989), 5-6.
86 whole, these women poets may portray women in a kinder light than their male counterparts.277 In times closer to Paul, there are several examples of well-known female poets.278 Pompey the Great (106-48 BCE) decorated his garden with almost all the known statues of Greek poetesses, many of whom are preserved in the Greek Anthology.279 The list of female poets in Pompey’s Garden that Tatian (c.120-180 CE) provides in Address to the Greeks 33 is quite comprehensive: Pra&cillan men ga_r Lu&sippoj e0xalkou&rghsen mhden ei0pou~san dia_ tw~n poihma&twn xrh&simon, Learxi/da de Mene/stratoj, Silani/wn de Sapfw_ th_n e9tai/ran, 1Hrinnan th_n Lesbi/an Nauku&dhj, Boi5skoj Murti/da, Murw_ th_n Buzanti/an Khfiso&dotoj, Go&mfoj Pracagori/da kai 0Amfi/stratoj Kleitw&. ti/ ga&r moi peri 0Anu&thj le/gein Telesi/llhj te kai Nossi/doj; th~j men ga_r Eu)qukra&thj te kai Khfiso&dotoj, th~j de Nikh&ratoj, th~j de 0Aristo&doto&j ei0sin oi9 dhmiourgoi/: Mnhsarxi/doj th~j 0Efesi/aj Eu)qukra&thj, Kori/nnhj Silani/wn, Qaliarxi/doj th~j 0Argei/aj Eu)qukra&thj. For Lysippus cast a statue of Praxilla, whose poems contain nothing useful, and Menestratus one of Learchis, and Selanion one of Sappho the courtezan, and Naucydes one of Erinna the Lesbian, and Boiscus one of Myrtis, and Cephisodotus one of Myro of Byzantium, and Gomphus one of Praxigoris, and Amphistratus one 277
Marilyn B. Skinner, “Ladies’ Day at the Art Institute: Theocritus, Herodas and the Gendered Gaze,” in Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Ancient Greek Literature and Society, ed. André Lardinois and Laura McClure (Princeton: Princeton University Pres, 2001), 201-22. Herodas wrote an epigram, Mime 6, which seems to parody some female poets of his day. In it, some women comment favorably concerning a dildo made by a shoemaker and the female poets Errinas and Nossis are mentioned. A translation is available in Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life and an alternative translation is provided by Herondas and Guy Davenport. “A Private Talk among Friends,” Grand Street, no. 53, Fetishes (Summer, 1995): 53-58; cf., I. C. Cunningham, “Herodas 6 and 7,” CQ, n.s., 14, no. 1 (1964): 32 n. 3. 278
Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, “An Issue of Methodology: Anakreon, Perikles, Xanthippos,” AJA 102, no. 4 (1998): 717-738; A. D. Booth, “Elementary and Secondary Education in the Roman Empire,” Florilegium 1 (1979): 1-14. 279
Ann L. Kuttner, “Culture and History at Pompey’s Museum,” TAPA 129, (1999): 343-373.
87 of Clito. And what shall I say about Anyta, Telesilla, and Mystis? Of the first Euthycrates and Cephisodotus made a statue, and of the second Niceratus, and of the third Aristodotus; Euthycrates made one of Mnesiarchis the Ephesian, Selanion one of Corinna, and Euthycrates one of Thalarchis the Argive. 280 Tatian’s description of Pompey’s Garden281 preserves the memory of several female poets and philosophers. Many of the female poets that he mentions are discussed above, and other poets are attested only here (and therefore dates are unknown): Learchis, Praxigoris, Clito, Mnesiarchis the Ephesian, Mystis, and Thalarchis the Argive. Three poets not mentioned above have only a handful of fragments from the fifth century BCE: Praxilla (8 frgs) and Myrtis (summary of views in Plut. Mor. 300d-f), Anyta (fragments in Carmina novem poetarum foeminarum, Antwerp, 1565, repr. Hamburg, 1734). Most of the sculptors listed above were well known in the ancient world: Lysippus,282 Selanion,283 Naucydes, 284 Euthycrates,285 and Cephisodotus.286 While these sculptors were known for
280
Translation by J. E. Ryland, ANF II. For ancient descriptions of the portico, see Sander M. Goldberg, “Plautus on the Palatine,” JRS 88 (1998), 12 n. 36. 281
The first to argue that Tatian was describing Pompey’s Garden was F. Coarelli, “Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea,” in Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti 44 (1970-1971): 99-122; other important works include K. Gleason, “The Portico of Pompey the Great: An Ancient Public Park Preserved in the Layers of Rome,” Expedition 32 (1990): 99-122; Gleason, “Porticus Pompeiana: A New Perspective in the First Public Park of Ancient Rome,” Journal of Garden History 14 (1990), 13-27; Kuttner, “Culture and History,” 343-73. 282
Lysippus flourished in 4th BCE. Pliny HN 34.51, 36.41; Mart. 9.44, Statius, Silvae 4.6.32; Plut. Alex. 4; Paus. 6.1.4; Quint. 12.10.1-10; Ath. 2.784; Strabo 6.3.1; cf., Nigel Guy Wilson, Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 2006), 4378. 283
Cic. Verr. 4, 57, 125 (Sappho); Plut. Mor. 674a (Jocasta); Paus. 6.14.11, Favorinus Frag. 36.5 (Muses) = Diog. Laert. 3.25. Cf., Lucy Myers Wright Mitchell, A History of Ancient Sculpture, (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1883), 2:482.
88 their other works, only Tatian knew of their statue of a female poet with the notable exception of Selanion that is mentioned by Cicero (Verr. 4, 57, 125). Other sculptors are only attested here: Boiscus, Menestratus, and Gomphus. Tatain continues his description of Pompey’s Garden by listing statues of coutezans, lyre players, and women from Greek mythology.287 His description concludes with Melanippe the Wise woman whose statue was made by Lysistratus (Plin. HN 35.44).288 Antipater of Thessalonica (fl. 1st CE) gives a very similar list of female poets: Ta&sde qeoglw&ssouj 9Elikw_n e1qreye gunai=kaj u3mnoij kai Makedw_n Pieri/aj sko&peloj, Prh&cillan, Moirw&, 0Anu&thj sto&ma, qh~lun 3Omhron, Lesbia&dwn Sapfw_ ko&smon e0uploka&mwn, 1Hrinnan, Tele/sillan a)gakle/a kai se/, Ko&rinna, qou~rin 0Aqhnai/hj a)spi/da melyame/nan, Nossi/da qhlu&glwsson i0de glukuaxe/a Mu&rtin, pa&saj a)ena&wn e0rga&tidaj seli/dwn. e0nne/a men Mou&saj me/gaj Ou)rano&j, e0nne/a d’ au)ta_j Gai=a te/ken qnatoi=j a1fqiton eu)frosu&nan. These god-tongued women were with song supplied From Helicon to steep Pieria’s side: Prexilla, Myro, Anyte’s grand voice – The female Homer; Sappho, pride and choice Of Lesbian dames, whose locks have earned a name, 284
Naucydes was a 5th century BCE sculptor known for athletic statues according to Ernest Arthur Gardner, A Handbook of Greek Sculpture, vols 1-2 (London: Macmillan, 1896), 338. Plin. HN 34.19; Paus. 2.17.5, 2.22.7, 6.1.3, 6.6.2, 6.8.4, 6.9.3. 285
Plin. HN 134.
286
Paus. 9.30.1 (Muses); Plin. HN 34.8.19 (Minerva), 36.4.6; Plut. Phoc. 19.
287
Glaucippe (myth, Herodotus, Library 2.1.5) by Niceratus, Phryne the courtesan (Plin. HN 34.71) by Praxiteles and Herodotus; Panteuchis by Euthycrates, Besantis by Dinomenes; Gycera the courtesan and Argeia the lyre player by Herodotus; Pasiphae by Bryaxis. 288
From Euripides, Melanippe the Wise.
89 Erinna, Telesilla known to fame. And thou, Corinna, whose bright numbers yield A vivid image of Athene’s shield. Soft-sounding Nossis, Myrtis of sweet song, Work-women all whose books will last full long. Nine Muses owe to Uranus their birth, And nine – and endless joy for man – to Earth.289 There is a tendency in the commentaries on Tatian to approach this section with disinterest. However, Jane DeRose Evans argues, mostly on the basis that courtesans would not be celebrated in Pompey’s Garden during Tatian’s time, that the statues in the Garden consisted of famous poets and comedic heroines. Evans is almost certainly correct when she concludes that most of the statues in the Garden would have been loot from Pompey’s conquests. As was common practice during this period, most of them would have been renamed, attested to famous sculptors, and possibly even repainted and restored to carry the names of the women that Pompey wanted to memorialize.290 In their former lives, many of these statues may have been Muses, goddesses, or patronesses. As people walked through Pompey’s Garden, they could be inspired by the educated women of ancient Greece – which was lamented by the poets in their misogynistic interpretations of the statues. 291 Several other poets referenced the inspiration and possible allure of the Garden. 292
289
Antipater of Thessalonica, Anth. Pal. 9.26. Translation from Neaves, Anthology, 128. Cf., Molly Whittaker, Taitian’s Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1982), 61-2. 290
Pompey’s intentions for the statues in the Garden are unclear, particularly because the earliest connection between Tatian and the Garden was not made in ancient times. 291
Jane DeRose Evans, “Prostitutes in the Portico of Pompey? A Reconsideration,” TAPA 139, no. 1 (2009): 123-145; cf., Sharon L. James, Learned Girls
90 Sulpicia is the only Roman female poet who wrote in Latin whose work is extant, and she was active during the reign of Augustus (31 BCE – 14 CE).293 Plant identifies her as the grand-daughter of the orator Servius Sulpicius Rufus (106-43 BCE), the friend of Cicero (106-43 BCE). Sulpicia was apparently in the patronage of her uncle Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus (64-8 BCE), who also supported Ovid (c. 43-18 BC) and Tibullus (55-19 BCE).294 Her education compliments Cicero’s witness for the process of education of Roman women, which included instruction by parents before marriage and by the husband after marriage.295 There were also women writing poetry in Greek during
and Male Persuasion: Gender and Reading in Roman Love Elegy (Berkely: University of California Press, 2003), 40. 292
Mart. 11.47; Ov. Am. 1.67, 3.387; Prop. 2.32.11-12; cf., Plin. Ep. 35.59.
293
Plant, Women Writers, 106.
294
H. N. Parker, “Sulpicia, the Auctor de Sulpicia, and the Authorship of 3.9 and 3.11 of the Corpus Tibullianum,” Helios 21, (1994): 39-62; cf., Carol U. Merriam, “Sulpicia: Just Another Roman Poet,” CW 100, no. 1 (2006): 11-1; Alison Keith, “Critical Trends in Interpreting Sulpicia,” CW 100, no. 1 (2006): 3-10; Judith P. Hallett, “Martial’s Sulpicia and Propertius’ Cynthia,” CW 86, no. 2 (1992): 99-123; David Roessel, “The Significance of the Name Cerinthus in the Poems of Sulpicia,” TAPA 120 (1990): 243-25; Thomas K. Hubbard, “The Invention of Sulpicia,” CJ 100, no. 2 (2005): 177-194; Amy Richlin, “Sulpicia the Satirist,” CW 86, no. 2 (1992): 125-140. 295
Edward E. Best, Jr., “Cicero, Livy and Educated Roman Women,” CJ 65, no. 5 (1970): 199-204; F. E. Adcock, “Women in Roman Life and Letters,” G&R 14, no. 40 (1945): 1-11; Vidén Gunhild, Women in Roman Literature: Attitudes of Authors under the Early Empire, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 57 (Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1993); L. J. Churchill, P. R. Brown, and J. E. Jeffrey, Women Writing Latin: From Roman Antiquity to Early Modern Europe (New York: Routledge, 2002).
91 this period. In first century Ephesus, the priestess Claudia Trophime dedicated some lines to Hestia in a prominently placed inscription. 296 Some women were itinerant poets in the ancient world.297 The clearest examples of such poetess are Aristodama of Smyrna (c.218 CE) and Alcione of Thronion (3rd BCE).298 Two honorary inscriptions dedicated to Aristodama have been analyzed by Ian Rutherford. The following inscription allows us to date Aristodama between 218 and 71 BCE because of the mention of Agetas of Kallipois, who appears in Polybius (200-118 BCE) 5.91.1: When Agetas of Kallipois was general (strategos) of the Aetolians. With good fortune. Resolved by [the city] of Lamia. Since Aristodama, daughter of Amytas, of Smyrna, an epic poetess from [Ionia], came to the city and gave several [readings] / of her own poems, in which she made worthy mention of the Aetolian people [and] of the ancestors of the nation, delivering her performance with zeal, that she should be made [proexenos] and benefactor (euergetes) of the city and that she should be granted citizenship, the right to acquire land and [property], the right of grazing (epinomia); immunity (asylia) and security by land and by [sea] / both in war and in peace, for herself, her children and possessions for [all] time, as well as all the rights which are granted to other proxenoi and benefactors. Let proxenia, citizenship, and asylia be granted also to O… her brother and his children. In the 296
Inscr. Eph. 1062. Translation available in Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 9; cf., Kathryn Gutzwiller, “Gender and Inscribed Epigram: Herennia Procula and the Thespian Eros,” TAPA 134, no. 2 (2004): 383-418. 297
Ian Rutherford, “Aristodama and the Aetolians: An Itinerant Poetess and her Agenda,” in Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and PanHellenism, ed. Richard L. Hunter and Ian Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 237-48. 298
There are many parallels to Aristodama’s dedicatory inscription in the ancient world. For examples, see Albert Schachter and William J. Slater, “A Proxeny Decree from Koroneia, Boiotia, in Honour of Zotion Son of Zotion, of Ephesos,” ZPG 163 (2007): 81-95. See also Marilynn B. Skinner, “Homer’s Mother,” in Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Ellen Green (Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2005), 98. For an excellent discussion of the use of poihth/j, see Ahuvia Kahane, Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition (Lantham: Lexington Books, 2005), 212 n. 103.
92 archonship of Python, Neon, and Antigenes, when Epigenes was general (strategos) and Cylus the hipparch. Guarantor of the proxenia was / Python son of Athenaeus. 299 SEG 2 also tells us that Aristodama received honors from Chalasios: a proxeny and 100 drachmas.300 Aristodama daughter of Amyntas from Smyrna in Ionia, epic poetess, arrived here and commemorated [our city]. So that we are seen to honor her appropriately, (it is resolved) to praise her for the piety which she has to the god and for her good-will to the city and to crown her with a garland of sacred laurel from the god, as is traditional for Khalion. The proclamation about the garland is to be made at the Poitropia. And there should be sent to her from our city a prerogative from Apollo’s sacrifice, a share of [meat to the hearth] of Smyrna. She should be proxenos and benefactor of the city. And there should be given to her and her offspring from the city possession of land, immunity, inviolability by war and peace by land and sea and everything else that goes to other proxenoi and benefactors. And there should be sent to her one hundred drachmas as a guest-gift. Her brother Dionysius should have proxenia, citizenship, and immunity. So that it is manifest to all who arrive in the sanctuary that Khaleion values highly those who choose to speak or write about the god, the decree is to be set up in the shrine of Apollo Nasiōtas, the other in Delphi. 301 Both Burstein and Austin suggest that Aristodama was a travelling poetess perhaps accompanied by her brother.302 Alcinoe of Thronion received similar honors from the
299
W. Dittenberger, ed. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols, 3rd ed. (191524), 532 [IG 9.2.62, 9.12.740] ; first published by G. Daux, “Inscriptions de Delphes,” BCH 46 (1922): 439-66. Translation in Michel Austin, The Hellenistic World form Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), no. 142; alternative translation in S. M. Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Cleopatra VII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 64. Dated 218/17 BCE. 300
Ian Rutherford, “Aristodama and the Aetolians: An Itinerant Poetess and her Agenda,” in Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and PanHellenism, ed. Richard Hunter and Ian Rutherford (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 301
FD 3.2.145. Translation in Rutherford, “Aristodama,” 239.
302
Burstein, Hellenistic, 87. Austin, Hellenistic World, 295.
93 city of Tenos.303 Rutherford argues that there are few female poets in the Roman period: Hedea of Tralles,304 an unknown woman of Alexandria and Cos,305 and Auphria of unknown city, and Damo306 and Julia Balbilla307 are weaker examples. There are further examples of vases, cups,308 and other plastic arts depicting the education of women and girls in every facet of Greek education: discussion,309 reading
303
Ael. NA 8.20.2; cf., Parth. Amat. narr. 27.1.1. See also Marilynn B. Skinner, “Homer’s Mother,” in Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome (Norman: Oklahoma Univ. Press, 2005), 98; cf., IG 12.5.812 = G18. Translation to follow. For an excellent discussion of the use of poihth/j, see Ahuvia Kahane, Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition (Lantham: Lexington Books, 2005), 212 n. 103. 304
FD 3.1.533-4.
305
She won several competitions, apparently as an Alexandrian competing in Cos. D. Bosnakis, “Zwei Dichterinnen aus Kos: Ein neues inschriftliches Zeugnis über das öffentliche Auftreten von Frauen” in The Hellenistic Polis of Kos: State, Economy and Culture, ed. K. Höhgmmar (Uppsala: Dept. of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 2004), 99-107. 306
T. C. Brennan, “The Poets Julia Balbilla and Damo at the Colossus of Memnon,” CW 91 (1997): 215-34. 307
Balbilla is an example of a Roman woman writing poetry in Greek. She was commissioned by Hadrian to memorialize a visit to Colossi and the activity of Memnon there, and her text was reconstructed in 1925 by J. M. Edmonds, “The Epigrams of Balbilla,” CR 39, no. 5 (1925): 107-110. 308 309
Marjorie Susan Venit, “Women in Their Cups,” CW 92, no. 2 (1998): 117-130.
Reinhard Lullies, Greek Sculpture, photos by Max Hirmer, trans. Michael Bullock (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1957), 219; Andrew F. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 586; Margarete Bieber, Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 889-90, cf. the school scene in 902.
94 and/or writing,310 music, 311 dance,312 and athletics.313 To illustrate the activity of women in reading and discussing, the best example is the Sarcophagus of Lucius Publius Peregrinus, where a woman is holding a scroll, listening and looking at an open scroll held by the philosopher.314 The sarcophagus of Plotinus is very similar, with two women looking on (very close to the philosopher), one holding a scroll, and the other intently listening. 315 A fifth century BCE Attic hydra in the kalpis shape shows a woman reading, a tablet with stylus, a chest full of scrolls, and a music contest.316 There are several other examples of women reading that decorate Greek vases. 317 A Roman copy of a third century BCE original depicts Klio with a stylus and a scroll. 318 Several fifth century Greek hydrias and calyx-craters also show girls dancing and playing musical 310
Klio holds a scroll and stylus in Stewart, Greek Sculpture, 766 (Roman copy); Kliener, 250 (man and wife with scroll); Beck, “Schooling of Girls,” 399b (woman with scroll). 311
Beck, “Schooling of Girls,” 396-405 (women playing the flute, lyre, and
cithara). 312
Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990-2002), 1:219, pl. 102; cf., 3:160-1, pls. 66a-d, 67a, and 68a-d, the five bronze ‘Dancers’ from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, 1 st CE. 313
F. A. Beck, Album of Greek Education: The Greeks at School and at Play (Sydney: Cheiron Press, 1975), 56; Beck, “The Schooling of Girls in Ancient Greece,” Classicum. Joint Bulletin of the Classical Association of New South Wales and of the Latin Teachers Association of New South Wales 9 (1978) 1-9; Booth, “Douris’ Cup and the Stages of Schooling in Classical Athens,” EMC 29 (1985) 274-80. 314
Rome, Museo Torlonia, inv. 424.
315
Vatican Museo Gregoriano Profano 9504.
316
Beck, Greek Education, pl. 399b, cf., 60.
317
Beck, Greek Education, pls. 353-356, 360a-b.
318
Stewart, Greek Sculpture, pl. 766.
95 instruments.319 A third century BCE terra cotta female dancer called the Baker Dancer after her donor to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art is an exquisite piece from this period.320 Two terracotta depicting literacy include a third century BCE girl reading from a scroll on her lap and a girl from the late Hellenistic period carrying some writing tablets.321 Another third century BCE terracotta depicts two dancing girls holding hands.322 Examples from the fouth and fifth century BCE of girls in athletics are rare. Beck preserves three examples: two vases depict girls in the gymnasium, and there is one statue of a female Olympic runner.323 Most of these aspects of education were put to the test in the pan-Hellenic games324 – including the Isthmian games in Corinth - in which girls participated. Plutarch writes that Aristomache of Erythrae competed in poetry at Isthmia, twice winning first prize.325 There are further examples of girls winning prizes in the pan-Hellenic games for poetry, and a vase depicts a woman in a reading contest.326 Girls also participated in
319
Beck, Greek Education, dancing: pl. 391a-b; 392a-b; 393; 395a-b: music: pls.
396-405. 320
Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture 1: 219, pl. 102
321
Beck, Greek Education, pl. 358. Several more examples of girls and women reading are provided in plates 349-373.4 322
Beck, Greek Education, pl. 394.
323
Beck, Greek Education, pls. 421-4.
324
Beck, Greek Education, pls. 223-60.
325
Plut. Mor. 675b; Ath. 6.234d; 10.436d. Cf., Plut. Mor. 645a, a girl won a poetry contest at funeral games held in honor of Pelias. 326
“Girls’ names appear in the victory-lists from Pergamon of the third-secondcentury B.C.: one gained a prize in recitation of epic, elegiac and lyric poetry and in
96 ritual, athletics, music, and dance in and around the Isthmian games.327 There are examples of women learning, teaching, and referenced as authorities in medicine in the Greek and Roman periods. This evidence provides the context for women learning philosophy. Like poetry, medicine, liberal education, and literacy, philosophically educated women learned from family members or tutors in a household context.328
Women’s Interest in Education: Papyri and Beyond Roger S. Bagnall, Raffaella Cribiore, and Evie Ahtaridis have compiled several letters attributed to women in their book Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt.329 Their
reading; the other was victorious in orthography (Inschrift.v.Perg. II 315 no. 463B),” Authur, “Erinna,” 56 n. 18. See the lists of female victors in G. Wissowa, “Zur Geschichte des kapitolischen Agons,” in Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms 4, ed. L. Friedländer (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1921), 276-82; Allen B. West, “Notes on Achaean Prosopography and Chronology,” C Phil 23, no. 3 (1928): 258-269; Matthew Dillon, “Did Parthenoi Attend the Olympic Games? Girls and Women Competing, Spectating, and Carrying out Cult Roles at Greek Religious Festivals,” Hermes 128, no. 4 (2000): 457-480 [for the death penalty for some women attending the Olympic games, see page 457]; Judith M. Barringer, “The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes: The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes,” Hesperia 74, no. 2 (2005): 211-241. 327
Wayne B. Ingalls argues that choral training in Greece was a central aspect of education in the ancient world, “Ritual Performance as Training for Daughters in Archaic Greece,” Phoenix 54, no. 1 (2000): 1-20. For dance, drama, music, and poetry at the Isthmian games, see Borimir Jordan, “Isthmian Amusements,” CI 8 (2001): 32-67; Ann Blair Brownlee, “Attic Black Figure from Corinth: III,” Hesperia 64, no. 3 (1995): 337382. 328
Paul Monroe, Source Book of the History of Education for the Greek and Roman Period (New York: Macmillan, 1923, 1932); Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (New York: Routledge, 2000); Raffaella Cribiore, ed., Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). 329
Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC-AD 800, trans. and ed. Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, with contributions by Evie Ahtaridis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006). An indispensable guide for locating papyri is John
97 critical notes support premises that are central to my argument: some women were positioned to control the education of themselves and their children, and education was available to lower class slaves and freedpersons who functioned as scribes and teachers.330 The home, as mentioned above, is the epicenter of education, but one may have to leave the house to follow a well-known rhetor, philosopher, or talented grammarian. BGU 1.332 (dated 2nd to 3rd century) indicates the presence of a household teacher as a mother sends a letter to her children. Σεραπιὰς τοῖς τέκνοις Πτολεμαίῳ καὶ Ἀπολιναρίᾳ καὶ Πτολεμαίῳ πλεῖστα χαίρειν. πρὸ μὲν πάντων εὔχομαι ὑμa=ς ὑγιαίνειν, ὅ μοι πάντων ἐστὶν ἀναγκαιότερον. τὸ προ[κύνημα ὑμw=ν ποιw= παρὰ τῷ κυρίῳ Σεράπιδι, εὐχομένη ὑμᾶς ὑγιαίνοντας ἀπολαβεῖν, ὡς εὔχομαι ἐπιτετυχότας. ἐχάρην κομισαμένη γράμματα, ὅτι καλῶς διεσώθητε. ἀσπάζου Ἀμμω[ν]οῦν σὺν τέκνοις καὶ συνβίῳ καὶ τοὺς φιλοῦντάς σε πάντας. ἀσπάζεταί ὑμᾶς Κυρίλλα καὶ ἡ θυγάτηρ Ἑρμίας Ἑρμίας, Ἑρ[μ]ανοῦβις ἡ τροφός, Ἀθηναΐς ἡ δέσκαλος, Κυρίλλα, Κασία, μ νις, Σ ανος, Ἔμπις, οἱ ἐνθάδε πάντες ἐρωτηθεὶς οὖν πε[ρὶ σ]ὲ ὃ πράσσεις γρ[άφ]ε μοι, εἰδὼς ὅτι, ἐὰν γράμματά σου λάβω, ἱλαρά εἰμι περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι. (hand 2) ἀπόδ(ος) Πτολεμαίῳ ἀδε(λ)φῷ Ἀπολινα[ρί]ας. (hand 1) ἀπόδος Πτολεμαίῳ(*) τῷ τέκνῳ. ἀσπάζου Serapias to her children Ptolemaios and Apolinaria and Ptolemaios, many greetings.
F. Oates, Roger S. Bagnall, Sarah J. Clackson, Alexandra A. O’Brien, Joshua D. Sosin, Terry G. Wilfong, and Klaas A. Worp, Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html, accessed Feb, 2012. 330
Rodney P. Robinson, “The Roman School Teacher and His Reward,” CW 15, no. 8 (1921): 57-61; Charles McNelis, “Greek Grammarians and Roman Society during the Early Empire: Statius’ Father and His Contemporaries,” CA 21, no. 1 (2002): 67-94.
98 Before all I pray that you are well, which is the most important of all for me. I make your obeisance before the lord Serapis, praying to find you well, as I pray that (you) have been successful. I was delighted to receive a letter to the effect that you have come through well. Greet Ammonous with her children and husband, and those who love you. Kyrilla greets you, and the daughter of Hermias, Hermias, Hermanoubis the nurse, Athenais the teacher, Kyrilla, Kasia, . . . , S-anos, Empis, all those here. Please write me about what you’re doing, knowing that if I receive a letter from you I am happy about your well-being. I pray for your health. (Address in second hand): Deliver to Ptolemaios the brother of Apolinaria. (Address in first hand): Deliver to Ptolemaios her son. Greet . . .331 Specifically for literacy and education, the editors of Women’s Letters compile P.Athen. 60, P.Oxy. 6.930, P.Oxy. 56.3860, but many other papyri cited in the book demonstrate interest in education. 332 P.Brem. 63 (July 117 CE) is a letter from a mother to a daughter, and refers to an educated girl. 333 Also from the second century is the letter from Diogenis to Kronion, instructing Isidora to go to a woman teacher. Diwgenij Kroni/wi tw~i filta&twi xai/rein. Kame a)nelqou~j?a?n? pro_j u(ma~j e0n T?al?ei p?r?o?j?d?e/?x?e?sqe: a)?l?l?’ e?u!xoma?i? paragenome/nh e0n m?h?deni u(ma~j me/myasqai, o#per e0lpi/zw mhden tou&twn genh&sesqai. pa&nta de ta_ kat’ e0me Lou&?rioj 331
BGU 1.332. Translation from Bagnall, Cribiore, and Ahtaridis, Women’s Letters. For the use of de/skaloj (de/skalh0) for female teachers, see Cribiore, Writing, 23-4, who traces the use of the word from antiquity to modern use; Cf. BL 1.39 (on lines 1, 11, and 12–13); 5.11 (on de/skaloj); See also J. Rowlandson, Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 332
Cribiore, Letters, 266-9.
333
Cribiore, Letters, 41.
99 o( a)delfo_j metadw&sei u(mi=n. e0rrw~sqai/ se bou&lo_lpar;mai_rpar;. a)spa&zou pa&ntaj tou_j e0mou_j kai I)sidw&ran kai u(page/tw4 e?i0?j? .desu. e0a_n Diduma~j a)ntile/ghi th? a)podo&sei Louri/wi, proe/negkon th_n ki/sthn mou kai sfragi/saj au)tou~ t?a_? grammat?ei=a pe/my?on?. Diogenis to her dearest Kronion, greeting. Be expecting me when I come up to you at Tali. But I pray that once I am there I will not find you at fault in anything: I hope that none of these things will happen. My brother Lourios will communicate to you everything concerning me. (second hand) I hope that you are well. Salute all my relatives and Isidora, and let her go to a woman teacher.334 Further letters exemplify that mothers are concerned with the education of their children. In P.Oxy 6.930 (2nd-3rd CE), a mother expresses concern that her son’s paidgagos Diogenes had found better work (presumably in Alexandria?) and her child was in need of a new teacher, which Diogenes should arrange. It is very interesting that the mother learns of this from Diogenes’s daughter, who had access to his learning. Diogenes’s dependence on the author’s patronage and his need for more support indicate his lower status and that of his daughter. υ μὴ ὄκνει μοι [γ]ράφειν καὶ περὶ w{ν ἐ[ὰ]ν χρείαν ἔχῃς ἐντεu=θεν ἐλυπήθην ἐπιγνou=σα παρὰ th=j θυγατρὸς τou= καθηγητοu= ἡμw=ν Διογένους καταπεπλευκέναι αὐτόν· ἠμερίμνουν 334
and 298.
The girl may also be mentioned in P. Mil. Vogl. 77. Cf. P. Mil. Vogl. 6.297
100 γὰρ περὶ αὐτοu= εἰδυi=α ὅτι κατὰ δύν[α]μιν μέλλει σοι προσέχειν. ἐμέλησε δέ μοι πέμψαι καὶ πυθέσθαι περὶ τh=ς ὑγιείας σου καὶ ἐπιγνώναι τί ἀναγιγνώσκεις. καὶ ἔλεγεν τὸ ζh=τα, ἐμαρτύρει δὲ πολλὰ περὶ τοῦ παιδαγωγοῦ σου. ὥστε οu1ν, τέκνον, μελησάτω σοί τε καὶ τῷ παιδαγωγῷ σου καθήκοντι καθηγητh?= σε παραβάλλειν. ἀσπάζονταί σε πολλὰ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου καὶ τὰ ἀβάσκαντα παιδία Θεωνίδος καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι πάντες κατʼ ὄνομα. ἄσπασαι τὸν τιμιώτατον(*) παιδαγωγόν σου Ἔρωτα. [ -ca.?-
ἐρρ
Ἁθὺρ β
. . do not hesitate to write to me also about whatever you need from here. I was grieved to learn from the daughter of our teacher Diogenes that he had sailed downriver, for I was free from care about him, knowing that he would look after you as far as possible. I took care to send and inquire about your health and to learn what you were reading. And he said the 6th book, and he testified a great deal concerning your paidagogos. So now, child, you and your paidagogos must take care to place you with a suitable teacher. Your sisters and the children of Theonis, whom the evil eye does not touch, and all our people greet you individually. Greet your esteemed paidagogos Eros . . .335 The editors note that the author of this letter is female because of the participle use, and she demonstrates her education by referring to the Illiad simply by zeta according to common practice.
335
P. Oxy. 6.930 = Bagnall, Letters, 267.
101 Teachers and Students While what we may call “formal education” was reserved for the elite boys336 in all time periods relevant to this study,337 the teacher was usually a slave 338 or a person of low status.339 In the Roman period, elite boys and sometimes girls would attend a grammar school for elementary education (basic reading, writing, and mathematics). Higher education such as advanced mathematics, astronomy, music, dance, athletics, rhetoric or philosophy would require the tutelage of a teacher who has mastered one or many of these disciplines. For both the grammar school and the advanced teaching, the teacher was almost always a slave or freedperson brought into the home, and a more famous teacher may instruct the children of his patron’s friends at the same time. P. Mich 1.77.5 (3rd BCE) is a letter in which the writer Apollonios consoles Zenon for receiving a slave who was older than he thought he would be – he is a filon dida/skaloj – and therefore had some worth because he was a talented teacher. Sometimes teachers were viewed with a lack of respect (Demosthenes, 384-322 BCE, On the Crown 285). Aeschines (389-314 BCE) writes that there is a law for when students should come and go to school
336
W. Martin Bloomer, “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education,” CA 16, no. 1 (1997): 57-78. 337
Winifred E. Howe, “Three Days in the Life of a Roman Prince: Germanicus’ First Day at School,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 11, no. 11 (1916): 1-4; J. B. Poynton, “Roman Education,” G&R 4, no. 10 (1934): 1-12. 338
S. L. Mohler, “Slave Education in the Roman Empire,” TAPA 71 (1940): 26280; George W. Houston, “Slave and Freedman Personnel of Public Libraries in Ancient Rome,” TAPA 132, no. 1/2 (2002): 139-176; Harris, Ancient Literacy, 255-9. 339
Robert A. Kaster, “The Social Status of the Grammarians,” in Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, ed. Robert A. Kaster (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 99-134.
102 because no one trusts the schoolmaster to be alone with the pupils after dark (Against Timarchus, 9). Teachers of the sort that Gellius railed against, however, do not seem to be the norm.340 The balance of the literature concerning teachers seems to point in the direction of respect. There is some evidence for both male and female teachers teaching girls. In a private letter (P. Giss. 1.80, 2nd CE), a man requests that the kaqhghth/j of his daughter is to be paid in some leftover pigeons and birds so that he will pay attention to her. There is a letter to Theon in which the kaqhghth/j of a girl is paid in oil and grapes (P. Oslo. 3.156, 2nd CE). Some scholars have presented the famous painted inscription, “E0rmio/nh grammatikh/,” as evidence a female teacher, but it is possible that the 19 year old woman was an avid student rather than a teacher.341 In most cases, the home is the center of education, and girls were typically educated in subjects that were useful in domestic life: spinning and household management. Xenophon (430-354 BCE) records the story where Ischomachus discusses the education of his wife in the manner that her parents should have, and he should learn from her in
340
SB 1.5753.3, Arsinoite, 1st CE. Amiel Vardi, “Gellius against the Professors,” ZPE 137 (2001): 41-54. 341
E. G. Turner suggests that we should translate grammatikh/ as “literary lady” rather than “teacher,” Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 77. A copy of the Illiad was “found rolled up and placed under the mummy of a lady” – this could indicate that she was literate and this was her most prized possession, or it could be a tool in the afterlife. It seems more convincing to me that she was literate because why would they expect her to be illiterate in this life and literate in the next? Dominic Montserrat argues that it is praise for the young woman’s learning, “Heron ‘Bearer of Philosophia’ and Hermione ‘Grammatike,’” JEA 83 (1997): 223-226.
103 matters that she knows more about (Oec. 7.42).342 She was only fourteen years old when they married, and Ischomachus says that she barely knew how to spin but she had excellent control over her appetites (Oec. 7.6). Ischomachus then says that he instructed her on the household duties that he expected and encouraged her to teach those who know less than her and learn from those who know more (Oec. 7.41, 10.10). Aside from the husband teaching his wife, Aristophanes (c. 446-386 BCE) describes how a girl in Athens could receive some education: e0gw_ gunh_ me/n ei0mi, nou~j d’ e1nesti/ moi, au)th_ d’ e0mauth~j ou) kakw~j gnw&mhj e1xw, tou_j d’ e0k patro&j te kai geraite/rwn lo&gouj pollou_j a)kou&sas’ ou) memou&swmai kakw~j. I am a woman, but I’m not a fool. And what of natural intelligence I own Has been filled out with the remembered precepts My father and the city-elders taught me. 343 Sparta did have a full course of education for girls that Plato and others admired – and the goal of this program was the same as for boys – to produce hearty citizens to defend and preserve the state. This educational program may be one of the reasons why most Pythagorizing women are from Sparta.344 Women in Athens learned at home, but both in Athens and in other parts of the ancient world, women were students and teachers 342
Xen. Oec. 7.1-10.1. L. R. Shero, “Xenophon’s Portrait of a Young Wife,” CW 26, no. 3 (1932):17-21; S. Murnaghan, “How a Woman Can Be More Like a Man: The Dialogue between Ischomachus and His Wife in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus,” Helios 15.1 (1988): 9-22; Anthony Gini, “The Manly Intellect of His Wife: Xenophon, ‘Oeconomicus’ Ch. 7,” CW 86, no. 6 (1993): 483-486. 343
Ar. Lys. 1124-5. Translation in Aristophanes, Lysistrata, trans. Jack Lindsay, London: Fanfrolico Press, 1926. 344
10-11.
Sarah B. Pomeroy, Spartan Women (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),
104 in every major school of philosophy, as both Tatian345 (120-180 CE) and Clement of Alexandria346 (150-215 CE) remember. We receive a glimpse of education of elite boys in the Roman period when Plutarch (46-120 CE) describes the education of Cato’s son. Cato (234-149 BCE) taught him how to read at home, and he also used Chilo to teach his son, a slave that was an exemplary grammarian.347 In pseudo-Plutarch’s essay on the education of free-born children, the focus is on elite boys, and he emphasizes the need for fathers to find competent teachers rather than entrusting the education of a son to an unqualified friend.348 Nevertheless, pseudo-Plutarch begins and ends the essay on education with the importance of women in the education. At the end of his essay, pseudo-Plutarch writes that parents should emulate the practice of Eurydice of Hierapolis (Alexander the Great’s grand-mother), whose inscription349 reads:
345
Tat. Ad Gr. 33.
346
Clem. Al. Strom. 4.7
347
Plut. Cat. 20.3.
348
Plut. Mor. 4c-5a. Edmund G. Berry, “The De Liberis Educandis of PseudoPlutarch,” HSCP 63 (1958): 387-399. 349
There are two other interesting inscriptions related to Eurydice. In 1992, at the Eucleia temple site in Vergina, a statue base was found with the inscription “Eurydice, daughter of Sirras, to Eucleia.” Eight years later, a similar inscription was found. See A. Oikonomedes, “A New Inscription from Vergina and Eurydice Mother of Philip II,” AncW 7 ( 1983): 52-54; Manolis Andronicos, Verghina, the Royal Tombs and the Ancient City (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1984), 49-51; Chryssoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, “In the Shadow of History: The Emergence of Archaeology,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 94 (1999), 353-367, Saatsoglou-Paliadeli “Eu0rudi/ka Sippa Eu0kli/a?0” en Amhto/j: Timhtiko/j gia ton KatQhghth/ Mano/lh Andro/niko (Thessaloniki, 1987), 733-44; AR 1983: fig. 84, AR 1990: fig. 91; Ergon 1990: 83-85; 1991: 65-68. A headless
105 Eu)rudi/kh 9Ierapolih~tij to&nd’ a)ne/qhke Mou&saij eu1iston yuxh ~ e9lou~sa po&qon. gra&mmata ga_r mnhmei=a lo&gwn mh&thr gegaui=a pai/dwn h(bw&ntwn e0cepo&nhse maqei=n. Eurydice of Hierapolis Made to the Muses this her offering When she had gained her soul’s desire to learn. Mother of young and lusty sons was she, And by her diligence attained to learn Letters, wherein lies buried all our lore.350 Of course in order for a mother to be able to teach her sons351 letters, she herself would need to know them, thus daughters would need to be instructed also. Plutarch and pseudo-Plutarch’s instructions and thoughts fit within the works of thinkers such as Cicero, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Heirocles, and others between 100 BCE and 200 CE who valued the education of women and used traditions regarding the involvement of
statue of Eucleia was discovered near the second inscription.” Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000), 41 n. 10, 44 n. 28. 350
Plut. Mor. 14c (Babbitt, LCL); Greek Anthology, Epigrammata dedicatoria 128.1. For alternative translation, see Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 213. Cf. Edmund G. Berry, “The De Liberis Educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch,” HSCP 63, (1958): 387-399. For the history of Eurydice, see N. G. L Hammond, A History of Macedonia (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1972), 3:119, 138; Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000), 41-50. Eurydice’s son Philip was a student of the Pythagorean philosopher in Thebes in the 380s BCE according to D. S. 16.2.2. Speusippus, successor of Plato wrote Philip a letter in 342 BCE (text and trans in E. Bickermann and J. Sykutris. Speusippus Breif an König Philipp. Verhandlung der süchsischen Akademie der Wussenschaften 80.3 (Leipzig, Hirzel, 1928). 351
Eurynoe.
Alexander II, Perdiccas, and Philip of Macedon. She also had a daughter,
106 women in medicine, poetry, and philosophy to make their case.352 These writings will be considered in chapter three, where our discussion will especially focus on women educated in philosophical traditions.
352
Cornelia was also used by Plutarch and others as an exemplary educated women who cared deeply about the education of her sons, see Plut. Tib. Gracch. 1; Tat. Or., 28. Plant, Women Writers, 101; Hemelrijk, Educated Women, 64-8.
CHAPTER 3: WOMEN IN PHILOSOPHY
In chapter two, I surveyed evidence that attests to the education of women and girls in a wide range of disciplines and tasks. In this chapter, I will argue that women were active in almost every ancient philosophical tradition. But these women philosophers are typically not considered in classical or New Testament studies. New Testament scholars have recognized the importance of a wide variety of ancient thought but have not considered how philosophically educated women might have interacted with Paul’s epistles. In this chapter, I will explore traditions that bear witness to the activity of women in philosophy in every major school that is considered important to New Testament studies. It is true that the evidence is varied and scattered over many time periods, but several constants emerge. I will argue that women could learn philosophy in a wide variety of contexts. We will see that philosophical education was most available to women who were connected to a wealthy household. Slaves and freedpersons who were connected to a wealthy household were sometimes encouraged to learn philosophy. Wealthy women were educated as girls by a tutor that was brought into the home, and participate in philosophical debate and discussion as young women and adults.
Women in the History of Philosophy In the late seventeenth century, the French scholar Gilles Ménage scoured classical literature searching for women remembered as philosophers, women who were
107
108 disciples or relatives of known philosophers, and women who contributed to intellectual interests similar to philosophy.353 A woman would be a philosopher if she met any one of these criteria, and Ménage found sixty-six women philosophers. 354 This number may become less impressive, though, when one considers that at least seventeen of these women come from one list in Iamblichus (c. 245-325 CE, VP 36.267), another is the daughter of a Centaur, and a few others are simply known associates of philosophers. The following table lists Ménage’s women philosophers and the ancient sources that he used.
Table 1. Ménage’s Women Philosophers355 Philosopher
1. Hippo
2. Cleobulina
3. Diotima
Era
12th BCE
fl. 570BCE
5th BCE
Location
Family
Criteria
Sources
unknown
daughter of Chiron (or Cheiron) the Centaur
practiced astronomy // prophetess
Clem. Al. Strom. 4.15; Cyril against Julian 4; cf., Plut. Mor. 1145e-1146b (does not mention Hippo)
unknown
Mantenia
daughter of Cleobulus
unknown
composer of riddles taught philosophy of love to Socrates
Arist. Rh. 3.2; Plut. Mor. 148d, 150e; Clem. Strom. 4.19; Ath. 4.21, 10.448b; Diog. Laert. 1.89; Pollux 7.11 Plato, Sym. 201d; Lucian, Images 18.2, [Eunuchus 7.7]
353
Ménage’s work, published in 1690 in Latin, first appeared in English in 1702 in the anonymous The Lives of the Ancient Philosophers, Containing an Account of their Several Sects: Extracted from Diogenes Laertius, Caussabon, Menagius, Stanley, Gassendus, Charleton, and others, the Best Authors on the Subject (London: Printed for John Nicholson, and Tho. Newborough, 1702), 535-564. 354
Beatrice Zedler, Introduction to The History of Women in Philosophy, by Gilles Ménage, trans. Beatrice Zedler (New York: University Press of America, 1984), vii. 355
The content of this table was taken from Ménage’s book. I have updated the references to make it easier for the reader to locate sources from modern editions.
109
4. Aspasia
470-410 BCE
Milesia
daughter of Axiochus
taught rhetoric to Pericles and philosophy to Socrates
5. Beronice
unknown
unknown
unknown
philosopher
6. Pamphila
1st CE
Epidaurian from Egypt
daughter of Soteridas, grammarian
philosopher
7. Clea
1st-2nd CE
unknown
unknown
unknown
wife of Pollianus
8. Eurydice
1st-2nd CE
9. Julia Domna
170-217CE
Rome
wife of Emperor Severus
10. Myro
unknown
Rhodesian
unknown
11. Anthusa
5th CE
unknown
unknown
12. Aganice (Aglaonice)
unknown
unknown
13. Eudocia (Athenais)
401-460CE
Athens
14. St. Catherine
d. 307CE
unknown
15.Anna Comnena
1083-1148 CE
Alexandria
daughter of Hegetor the Thessalian daughter of Heraclitus or Leontius, wife of Theodosius the Younger unknown daughter of Emperor Alexius, wife of Nicephorus Brynnius Caesar
philosopher philosophic ally educated // taught her children
philosopher philosopher contemplati on of clouds (physics = philosophy) successfully calculated times of eclipse
Plato, Men. 235e, 235e, 236a-b, 249d; Plut. Lives 124.23-5 [“Pericles”]; Diog. Laert. 6.9 [“Antisthenes”]; Clem. Strom. 4.19; Ath. 5.61.10, 29, 5.63.7, 13.23.4, 13.25.28, 13.37.16, Epitome vol. 2,1.82.24, vol. 2,2.107.26, vol. 2,2.117.7; 2,2.110.27
Phot. Bibl.144a Phot. Bibl, “Sopater” and “Pamphila”; Sudias “Pamphila” and “Soteridas”; Diog. Laert. often uses her works 1.24.11, 1.68.7, 1.76.1, 1.98.11, 2.24.9, 3.23.4, 5.36.9; Gell. NA 15.17, 23. Plut. Mor. 242e [“On the Bravery of Women”] Plut. Mor.138a [Conjugal Precepts] and Mor. 14c [On the Education of Children]. Dio Cass. 76, 78; Philostr. V S, 30 (Philiscus the Thessalian), V A 1.3. Sudias, “Myro” and Athen. 2.70.
Phot. Bibl. “Damascius.” Plut. Mor. 145d [“Conjugal Precepts”]
philosopher
Paschal Chronicle, Olympiad CCC; Socrates, Ecc. Hist. 7.21
scholar / philosopher
Simeon Metaphrastes, Nov. 25th entry [Gentien Harvet]
scholar / philosopher
Simeon Metaphrastes
110
16. Eudocia
11th CE
Constantinople
17. Panypersebasta
14th CE
Constantinople
wife of despot Constantine Palaeologus wife of Emperor’s nephew John Panypersebast us
philosopher
Nicephorus Gregoras, History 8.5
scholar / philosopher
Nicephorus Gregoras, History 8.5
18. Novella
14th CE
daughter of philosopher John Andrea
19. Heloise
1101-1164 CE
wife of Peter Abelard, theologian
lawyer instructed by husband in philosophy
Notre-Dame
Christine Pisan, City of Women, part 2 ch. 16. Francis Ambrosius, Apologetic Preface for Abelard
Platonists 20. Lasthenia
4th BCE
unknown
unknown
disciple of Plato
21. Axiothia
4th BCE
unknown
22. Geminae
3rd CE
unknown
unknown mother and daughter
disciple of Plato disciples of Plotinus
23. Amphilia
4th CE
unknown
24. Hypatia
370-415 CE
Alexandria
Daughter of Aristo, wife of the son of Iamblichus daughter of Theon of Alexandria
family relationship ?
Diog. Laert. 3.31 [“Plato”]; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; Them. Or. 12 Diog. Laert. 3.31 [“Plato”]; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; Them. Or. 12 Porph. Plot. 9.2-3.
philosopher
Porph. Phot. 9.2-3. Eunapis, “Ionicus” (for Theon); Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.15
scholar / philosopher
Cic. Att. 12.51; Letters to His Friends 13.72; Cass. Dio 46
4th-3rd BCE
daughters of the rhetorician Diodorus Cronus (Megarian)
philosopher / rhetorician
Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; Jerome, Against Jovinianus 1 (cites Philo the Dialectician, disciple of Diodorus Cronus and Zeno of Citium – who said that there were five daughters and he wrote a history of them
4th BCE
daughter of Aristippus of Cyrene
philosopher
Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; Diog. Laert. “Aristippus”
Academicians 25. Caerellia
1st CE
unknown
unknown
Dialecticians
26. Argia 27.Theognida 28.Artemisia 29.Pantaclea Cyrenaics 30. Arete
Cyrene
111 Megarians 31. Nicarete
4th BCE
Megara?
friend and disciple of Stilpo
disciple of Stilpo
Ath. 8.596e; Diog. Laert. 2.114.
wife of Crates
philosopher
Antipater Anth. Pal. book 3; Clem. Al. Strom. 4; Diog. Laert. “Hipparchia”
Daughter of Olympiodorus ; wife of (his disciple) Proclus of Lycia
taught philosophy by her father
Marinus of Naples “Proclus”; Suidas.
unknown
scholar / philosopher
Photius Codex 118 Bekker page 125b line 33
Cynics 32. Hipparchia
300 BCE
Maroneia
Peripatetics
33. Unnamed Daughter of Olympiodorus
5th CE
34. Theodora
6th CE
unkown
Epicureans
35. Themiste
4th-3rd BCE
Lampascus
36. Leontium
4th-3rd BCE
Athens
wife of Leontius of Lampascus, daughter of Zoilus of Lampascus friend of Epicurus and Metrodorus
37. Theophila
4th-3rd BCE
unknown
unknown
philosopher scholar / philosopher
Rome
daughter of Cato, wife of Brutus
philosopher
Plut. “Brutus,” 13.3.
unknown
mother, daughter, granddaughter
philosopher s
Plin. Ep. 31, 34, 101; Dio Cass. 60.16.4
sister of Pythagoras
taught Pythagoras morals
Diog. Laert. “Pythagoras” = Theoclea in Suidas = Aristoclea in Porphyry
philosopher
Clem. Al. Strom. 4; Lactant. 3.25. Cic. Nat. D. 1; Plin. Ep. 35.11; Diog. Laert., “Epicurus;” Ath. 13 Martial book 8 [7.69]
Stoics 38. Porcia 39. Arria 40. Arria 41. Fannia
42 BCE 42 BCE; fl. 66CE; d.c. 108CE
Pythagoreans
42. Themistoclea
6th BCE
112
6th BCE
wife of Pythagoras
44. Myia
6th – 5th
daughter of Pythagoras and Theano
45. Damo
6th – 5th BCE
daughter of Pythagoras
46. Sara
6th – 5th BCE
47. Timycha
c. 4th BCE
Lacedemonian
48. Philtatis
unknown
49. Occello
43. Theano
philsopher
philosopher keeper of the sacred Pythagorean writings
Hermesianax Frg. 7.85; Plut. Mor. 145e ['Nuptial Precepts'], Lucian, Images 19.6; Porph. Plot. 4.2, 19.4, Diog. Laert. 8.43.4-6 [“Pythagoras”], Photius codex 177, Bekker page 114b.1; Libanius to Aristaenetus; Theodoritus, Therapeutica 2.23.2, 12.73.7; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; cf., Herodotus, Persian, book 1; Iamblichus 28.146.13; Anth. Pal. 14.138.4; Athen. 13.71; Pollux 10.21.7 Clem. Al. Strom. 4, Diog. Laert., Porphyry, Iamblichus [wife of Milo of Crotona], Sudias “Pythagoras”
Porphyry; Diog. Laert.
family relation?
anonymous author of Life of Pythagoras
philosopher
Iamblichus
Crotona
daughter of Pythagoras wife of Myllias of Crotona daughter of Theophis of Crotona, sister of Bynthanichus
philosopher
unknown
Lucania
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus Iamblichus; cf., Censorinus, Natal Day, ch. 3
50. Ecello
unknown
Lucania
philosopher
Iamblichus
51. Chilonis
6th BCE
Lacedemonia
philosopher
Iamclichus
52. Theano
6th BCE
Metapontium
unknown daughter of Chilo of Lacedemonia wife of Brontius of Metapontium
philosopher
Iamblichus
Arcadia
may be the same woman mentioned in Plato
philosopher
Iamblichus
Tarentum
daughter of Arboteles of Tarentum
philosopher
Iamblichus
53. Lasthenia
54. Abrotella
4th BCE
unknown rd
55. Echecratia
3 BCE
Philasia
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
56. Tyrsene
unknown
Sybaris
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
57. Bisorronde
unknown
Tarentum
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
113
58. Nestheadusa
unknown
Lacedemonia
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
59. Byo
unknown
Argus
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
60. Babelyma
unknown
Argos
unknown
philosopher
Iamblichus
philosopher
Iamblichus
61. Cleachma
unknown
Lacedemonia
sister of Autocharidas of Lacedemonia
62. Phintys
3rd BCE
Athens?
daughter of Callicrates
philosopher
63. Perictione
unknown
unknown
unknown
philosopher
Stobaeus 72 Sobaeus; Photius (Pierectiones)
64. Melissa
unknown
unknown
unknown
philosopher
letter Melissa to Clareta
65. Rhodope
unknown
unknown
unknown
philosopher
letter from Theano to her “the philosopher”
66. Ptolemais
2nd-3rd CE
Cyrene
unknown
philosopher
Porphyry Commentary on the Harmony of Ptolemy
As a whole Ménage’s work is still a useful starting point as a sourcebook for classical references to women philosophers. At the same time, there are some significant oversights in Ménage. He completely ignores the epistles of Seneca (c.8-65 BCE/CE) to Helvia and Marcia, and does not fully explore Plutarch’s (c.46-120 BCE) exhortations to Eurydice. This is puzzling because he does acknowledge Cicero’s (106-43 BCE) admiration of Caerellia.356 More recent examinations of women in philosophy are incomplete and do not significantly improve on Ménage. In 1987, Mary Ellen Waithe published a history of 356
Ménage, Philosophers, 7, 31; Cicero favorably mentions Caerellia in Fam. 13.72; and less favorably in Att. 13.21.5, 14.19, and 15.1.4. Cicero was not happy that Caerellia was able to obtain a copy of de Finibus before it was published (but he said that she was inspired by a love of philosophy to do so), and frustrated by her attempt to heal the rift between Cicero and Publilia. Some fragments of his letters to her are preserved by Quint. 6.3.112.
114 women in philosophy. The following table illustrates the few philosophers that are addressed by the contributors to Waithe’s history.
Table 2. Wathie’s Philosophers357 Philosopher
Era
1. Thesistoclea
600BCE
2. Theano
600BCE
3. Arignote
550BCE
4. Myia
550BCE
5. Damo 6. Aesara
550BCE 3rd BCE1stCE?
Lucania
7. Phyntis
300 BCE
Sparta
8. Pericitione I
300 BCE
Location
Crotona
Family
School
Pythagoras’s sister
Criteria taught Pythagoras morals
Pythagoras’s wife
philosopher
Pythagorean
Pythagoras’s daughter
philosopher
Pythagorean
Pythagoras’s daughter Pythagoras’s daughter
philosopher = harmonia entrusted with writings
unknown daughter of Kallicrates the Pythagoran
philosopher
Pythagorean
philosopher
Pythagorean
Pythagorean
Pythagorean
9. Theano II
3rd BCE1stCE?
philosopher
Pythagorean
10. Pericitione II
3rd BCE1stCE?
philosopher
Pythagorean
11. Aspasia
450 BCE
philosopher
Periclean
Miletus
Diog. Laert. “Pythagoras” wrote “On Pity” [Hesleff]; Stob. 268 Peter Gorman, Pythagoras, 90. Letter to Phyllis [Thesleff / Hercher]
Pythagorean
philosopher
357
unknown
Pythagorean
Sources
book on Human Nature [Thesleff]
On the Harmony of Women [Thesleff] Theano to Eubole; Theano to Nikostrate; Theano to Kallisto. Spurious: T. to Rhodophe; to Eukleides, to Euridike. On the Moderation of Women frgs 1 and 2 [Thesleff] speech in Plato Menexus 241c; Pericles funeral oration
This table was created from data presented in Waithe’s book. All dates are her own, and where no location was listed I left the entry blank. The term “philosopher” indicates that Waithe claims that the person engaged in philosophy or was philosophically educated.
115
12. Diotima
450 BCE
Matinea
not an historical person
wife of Septimius Severus sister of Gregory of Nyssa daughter of aristocrats Basilius and Emmelia
ficticious creation by Plato
13. Julia Domina
b. 170CE
philosopher
14. Makrina
300 CE
15. Hypatia
400 CE
Alexandria
16. Arete
300 BCE
Cyrene
17. Asclepeigenia
400 CE
Athens
daughter of Aristippus daughter of Plutarch the Younger
18. Axiothea
350 BCE
Philesia
student of Plato
philosopher
19. Cleobulina
500 BCE
daughter of Cleobulus
philosopher
20. Hipparchia
350 BCE
wife of Crates
philosopher
21. Lasthenia
350 BCE
student of Plato
Philosopher
scholar
philosopher
philosopher
P.G. 46, 29b Christian Neo-Platonist
philosopher philosopher
speech in Plato Syposium 205a206a Dio Cassius 76, 78; Philost. Lives, 30 (Philiscus the Thessalian), Apollonius of Tyana 1.3.
Syncretism
well documented Strabo 17.3.22; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; Diog. Laert. “Aristippus”; Eusebius 18.32.764a; Them. Or. 21.44 Marinus, Life of Proclus 18-29 Themistius Or. 23.295c; Dicaerchus, frg. 44 Diog. Laert. “Cleobulus”; Aristotle, Poetics 1458a24; Plut. Mor. 148. Antipater of Sidon 3.12.52; Clem. Strom. 4.19; Diog. Laert. “Hipparchia;” Suda “Hipparchia.” Diog. Laert. “Plato” and “Speusippus”
116 Waithe’s work is heavily concentrated on philosophically educated women in Pythagorean traditions, and is useful for its translations of Thesleff’s358 Pythagorean texts, but it is overshadowed by Guthrie’s work in 1920.359 There are some notes on the historical situation of these women, but these notes have not been well received in scholarship. For example, Mary Anne Warren complains of the lack of critical notes and transitions from one philosopher to the next.360 Gillian Clarke posits that Waithe’s understanding of the ancient world lacks an historical method, and Waithe ignored recent scholarship.361 R. M. Dancy writes in his critique, “apart from a few displays of thorough and competent research, it is generally based on substandard scholarship.”362 Monica Green is troubled by the complete lack of reference to the immense amount of scholarship both on the historical and conceptual context of the subject, concluding that
358
Holger Thesleff, ed., The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1965); cf. the companion volume, Thesleff, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1961). 359
Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, Pythagoras: Sourcebook and Library. Contains all Available Material about Pythagoras and Complete Collection of Writings of his Disciples. First Rehabilitation of Pythagoreanism for 2400 Years Since the Tragic Burning of the House in which his School was Assembled in Crotona, about 500 B.C. (Yonkers, N.Y.: Platonist Press 1920). 360
Mary Anne Warren, “Feminist Archeology: Uncovering Women’s Philosophical History,” Hypatia 4, no. 1, The History of Women in Philosophy (1989): 155-159. 361
Gillian Clark, Review, A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe, CR, n.s., vol. 38, no. 2 (1988): 429-430. 362
R. M. Dancy, “On A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. I,” Hypatia, 4, no. 1, The History of Women in Philosophy (1989): 160-171.
117 Waithe’s book is a compilation of translations rather than a history of women in philosophy. 363 Many other scholars have critically addressed topics that relate to philosophically educated women, but the most important work that critiques Waithe and Ménage is Ethel M. Kersey. Kersey’s work is the only modern comprehensive review of ancient female philosophers, but her focus is on the rhetorical portrayal of philosophically educated women in ancient sources rather than establishing reconstructions of the history of educated women. 364 I. M. Plant has collected many writings of women in the ancient world, including many philosophers that will be very useful for this study due to the depth of study and quality of scholarship. 365 I will again review the original sources for the best evidence for philosophically educated women and identify their social contexts. I will attempt to show the strength of traditions concerning philosophically educated women in a variety of schools, from the founding of the schools through the second century CE.
Women in the Pre-Socratics It is said that in the 6th century BCE Bias of Priene ransomed some young women from Messina, educated them like they were his own daughters, and sent them back to 363
Monica Green, review of A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe, Isis 80, no. 1 (1989): 178-179. 364
Ethel M. Kersey, Women Philosophers: A Bio-Critical Source Book (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989). 365
2001).
I. M. Plant, Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome (London: Equinox,
118 their fathers (Diog. Laert. 1.82). Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) also says that Cleobulus of Lindus (6th BCE) had a daughter named Cleobulina, who wrote enigmas in hexameter verse and is mentioned in a play by Cratinus (518-422 BCE).366 “[Cleobulus] used to say that men ought to give their daughters in marriage while they were girls in age, but women in sense; as indicating that girls ought to be well educated.”367 The riddles of his daughter Cleobulina (fl. early 7th BCE) are preserved in Aristotle (384-322 BCE, Poetics 1458a, not explicitly attributed to Cleobulina), Plutarch (fl. 46-120 CE, Mor. 150e), the Greek Anthology, and Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE, 10.448b).368 Her riddles were most likely used as subjects of discussion at dinner parties.369 Because the fragment in Aristotle is spurious, it is best to regard these women as non-historical predecessors of later philosophically educated women.
The First Philosophically Educated Women: The Pythagorizing Women Like some other later philosophers, it is said that Pythagoras was taught by a woman. In his case, Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) says that Pythagoras (570-495 BCE) 366
Diog. Laert. 1.89; cf., Plut. Mor. 148d.3; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19.
367
Diog. Laert. 1.91.
368
Plant, Women Writers, 29-32. The biographical information concerning Cleobulina is contradictory, but Plant argues that we should not entirely dismiss her historicity. 369
Richard P. Martin, “Enigmas of the Lyric Voice,” in Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, ed. André Lardinois and Laura McClure (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 62-3; Richard P. Martin, “Ancient Collections of Women’s Sayings: Form and Function,” BICS 50, no. 1 (2008): 161-9. cf., Richard P. Martin, “The Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom,” in Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, ed. Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993): 108-128.
119 learned ethics from the priestess Themistoclea.370 Women were important in Pythagorianism from its beginnings and these traditions were remembered hundreds of years later. The traditions concerning Pythagoras’s wife Theano are very early. 371 Three fragments from ancient poets mention her: Euripides (480-406 BCE, frag. 823 = Stob. 4.23.32 [53] TLG) mentions her simply as Qeanw_ h( Puqago&reioj; in Hermesianax she is Theano of Thebes who speaks in riddles (fl. 330 BCE, frag. 7.85 = Athen.13.10.6); and Empedocles (490-430 BCE, frag. 155.5 = Diog. Laert. 8.43) says she is the wife of Pythagoras. While Cicero (106-43 BCE)372 and Seneca (1-65 CE)373 knew about many Pythagorean traditions, they do not mention any traditions concerning women in 370
Diog. Laert. 8.1.
371
The name Theano was very important for Greek cultic traditions. Joan Brenton Connelly traces the traditions of the name Theano as a priestess from Homer onwards in her Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece (Princeton: University Press, 2007). 372
To my knowledge, Cicero does not mention any traditions of women in Pythagoreanism. Pythagoras was important to Cicero due to his interest in friendship (Off. 1.56). He mentions persecution of Pythagoreans but nothing of their families (Off. 3.10.45). Cicero knows of the tradition of Pythagoras’ remarkable memory (Sen. 78, cf. 92). He says that he is irritated with Pythagoreans who quote the philosopher as “the master” (Nat. D. 1.26). He argues against the Pythagorean dogma concerning the unity of the human soul with God (Nat. D. 1.40, cf. 3.314), he knows of their tradition of secrecy 1.74, and he follows the tradition of Pythagoras sacrificing a goat when he made a discovery in geometry 3.339. In Or. 9.31 he sarcastically asks if a woman had read Plato or Pythagoras (otherwise she would be free from her lusts). In Rep. there is a musing about Plato learning from the Pythagoreans, 3.301; Pythagoras is dated in the 63rd Olympiad in 2.560. 373
Seneca knows of Pythagorean reincarnation, Ben. 7.20.5; silence for five years, Ep. 52; Pythagorean spiritual teachings in Ep. 94; Sotion’s Pythagorean teachings inspired him to be a vegetarian (even though he did not adopt a Pythagorean rationale), Ep. 108. Cf., Brad Inwood, “Seneca in His Philosophical Milieu,” HSCP 97 (1995): 6970.
120 Pythagoreanism. The biographers of Pythagoras, who may be relying on a lost work of Aristotle, trace the origins of some of his teachings to women. Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) mentions Theano in using her teachings to instruct Eurydice in the womanly virtues of modesty, silence, and learning.374 Julius Pollox (2nd CE) mentions Theano as the author of the epistle to Timaretan.375 Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE) has an interest in Theano due to the association of Pythagoreans with an odd diet.376 Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), in his Dialogue on Male and Female Love briefly mentions Theano as the daughter of Pythagoras.377 Photius (810-893 CE) preserves an anonymous biography of Pythagoras which indicates that Theano was a disciple who was like a daughter.378 Theano’s entry in the Suda (10th CE) identifies her as a Pythagorean philosopher who authored a few lost works.379 There are seven letters attributed to Theano in the neo-Pythagorean pseudepigraphon which are all addressed to women. However, these letters do not 374
Plut. Mor. 142c. For detailed discussion and bibliography, see Sarah B. Pomeroy, Advice to the Bride and Groom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 375
Julius Pollox, Onomasticon, 10.21.7. This letter is preserved in Thesleff, but is certainly not the Pythagorean Theano. 376
Ath. 8.21.36; 13.6.31; 13.10.6; 2.2.102.8; 2.2.102.17.
377
Lucian, Erotes, 30.
378
Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 237.15.
379
Burkert explains that the different roles of Theano as wife, daughter, or student of Pythagoras is related to the conflicting theories of whether or not he was celibate in Lore and Science, 114. I will note here that Robert Garland suggests that there was not much room in antiquity for women with brains, Celebrity in Antiquity: From Media Tarts to Tabloid Queens (London: Duckworth, 2006), 127. Within Pythagorean families, as well as within the families of Seneca, Plutarch and Pliny, intelligent women were highly valued.
121 contain any meaningful continuity with the doctrines of Pythagoreanism, none has the preserved teachings of Theano, and some have no contact with any other known philosophy. 380 The letters are considered “neo-Pythagorean” only because some letters are written by or addressed to names traditionally associated with Pythagoreanism. It is important that these letters appear at about the time of Paul: it was feasible for women to be active in philosophy, even if it was restricted to popular morality concerning patronage, marriage and family, and self-sufficiency as I will demonstrate in chapters 58.
Pythagoreanism and Early Christianity Justin Martyr (103-165 CE) is the first Christian apologist to mention Pythagoras, but it is almost in passing and includes no specific reference to his teachings or traditions concerning women.381 Justin tells us that he tried to be a student of an illustrious Pythagorean but was not qualified; in fact, this is the only instance in Justin where
380
The text of the letters are preserved in Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 195-201. An English translation and some very brief commentary is available by Vicki Lynn Harper in Waithe, Women Philosophers, 41-55. Discussion of this letter is available in New Docs 6:18-23; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra, 64-8; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 193. English translation available in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 82-5. I do not exclude the possibility that these were written by neo-Pythagorean women who may have taken names of early Pythagorean philosophers because they reinforce traditional misogynistic ideals. Therefore, we may need to consider that these writings were not liberating for women. For later traditions see Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 201–2, 206–8. 381
Just. Apol. 18.5; For Justin’s use of philosophy, see Arthur J. Droge, “Justin Martyr and the Restoration of Philosophy,” CH 56, no. 3 (1987): 303-19.
122 Pythagoras or Pythagoreans are not lumped together with Plato or other schools. 382 Tatian (120-180 CE) uses Pythagoras’s teaching concerning reincarnation as part of a polemic against the various teachings of Greek philosophers concerning the doctrine of the soul.383 Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181 CE) briefly mentions Pythagoras, but similarly to Tatian it is soundly within his polemic against other philosophers; Pythagoras is attacked for teaching that no god should be worshipped.384 Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE) identifies Valentinus (d. 150 CE) as a Pythagorean, tracing his views back to Timaeus’s method in Plato’s Timaeus.385 Being the first Christian apologist to have a knowledgeable and somewhat favorable disposition to the philosopher, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) preserves twelve Pythagorean a1kousma and considered Philo a Pythagorean.386 Clement is of
382
Just. Dial. 2; cf. 5 and 6. To modern scholars, Justin’s teacher would be considered a neo-Pythagorean. 383
Tat. Ad. Gr. 25. Tatian dates Pythagoras in the 62nd Olympaid in ch. 41; Diog. Laert. 8.45 places him in the 60th. Diogenes Laertius says that Pythagoras thought that he was the reincarnated Aethalides, the son of Hermes who could remember everything, Diog. Laert. 8.4. For the theological method of Tat. see Robert Grant, “Studies in the Apologists,” HTR 51, no. 3 (1958): 123-28. 384
Theophilus to Autolychus 3.7. Robert Grant dismisses Theophilus’ statement about Pythagoras as incorrect, “Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus,” HTR 40, no. 4 (1947): 243. 385
Hippol. Haer. 6.26. For bibliography on the methods in Timaeus see Aryeh Finkelberg, “Plato’s Method in Timaeus,” AJP 117, no. 3 (1996): 391-409. 386
Salvatore R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 9-59; David T. Runia, “Why does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo ‘The Phythagorean?’,” VC 49, no. 1 (1995): 1-22; Cf., R. E. Witt, “The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria,” CQ 25, no. 3/4 (1931): 195-204; Eric Osborn, “Arguments for Faith in Clement of Alexandria,” VC 48, no. 1 (1994): 11. Clement favorably mentions
123 course not always favorable in his references to Pythagoreanism and Platonism, comparing both schools to Marcion in their hatred for being born into the world and decrying marriage.387 In addition to this, Clement contrasts the way that humans acquire knowledge of the divine in Christianity and philosophy.388 However, keeping with the apologetic tradition of dating Moses before the philosophers, Clement believes that Pythagoras borrowed many teachings from Moses.389 Clement (150-215 CE) also knows of the secret nature of Pythagorean teachings, citing for example the expulsion of Hipparchus (c. 380 BCE).390 It is the secret nature of the Pythagorean teachings which would give an ideal context for the participation of women in Pythagoreanism as preservers and guardians of secret philosophical tradition within families. Some of Pythagorean practices and teachings in Strom. 1.1.10; 1.10.6 referring to Muses and Sirens; 1.14.62-3 includes important biographical information for Pythagoras but is lacking mention of women (cf., 6.2.27); 1.15.69-70 continues biographical information; 4.3.9 God alone is wise; 4.22.144 hope after death; 4.26.144 the Christian makes use of the Pythagorean teaching of threefold good things and their method of prayer (two references); 5.8.50 Clement sees value in the symbolic interpretation of some words by Androcydes the Pythagorean; 5.11.67 silent reflection applauded; cf., Paed. 1.10.94; 2.1.11. 387
Strom. 3.3.12-24.
388
Strom. 5.13.88 and 6.7.57; cf., 6.8.1. In 5.14.89 Clement challenges Pythagoras and other philosophers on their concept of matter. Pythagoras’ concept of the transmigration of the soul is discarded in 2.20.114; 7.6.32. 389
Strom. 1.21 has some biographical information as Clement argues for the primacy of Moses; cf., 1.22.3; 2.18.79. 390
Strom. 5.9.57; the expulsion of Hipparchus is also known to Iambl. 17.75. Iamblichus quotes part of the letter by Lysis to Hipparchus; Diogenes Laertius also knows of this letter. Michel Tardieu demonstrates that Clement and the letter of Lysis (in Thesleff, 111-14) quote from the same source, “La Lettre à Hipparque et les réminiscences pythagoriciennes de Clément d’Alexandrie,” VC 28, no. 4 (1974): 241-7. Cf., Burkert, Lore and Science, for the secret nature of the original Pythagoreans (from Aristotle), 178-9; cf., further discussion in 219-24; for the letter of Lysis, 459.
124 Clement’s references to Pythagoras (and his teachings and followers) touch on issues related to women, 391 culminating in his four references to Theano.392 All of Clement’s references to Theano are complimentary and most of them are known by other ancient sources that will be discussed below. Clement mentions, as do other writers, that Theano was the first woman to philosophize: Di/dumoj d’ e0n tw ~ peri Puqagorikh~j filosofi/aj Qeanw_ th_n Krotwnia~tin prw&thn gunaikw~n filosofh~sai kai poih&mata gra&yai i9storei=. 9H men ou}n 9Ellhnikh_ filosofi/a, w(j me/n tinej, kata_ peri/ptwsin e0ph&boloj th~j a)lhqei/aj a(mh ~ ge/ ph , a)mudrw~j de kai ou) pa&shj, gi/netai: w(j de a1lloi bou&lontai, e0k tou~ diabo&lou th_n ki/nhsin i1sxei. e1nioi de duna&meij tina_j u(pobebhkui/aj e0mpneu~sai th_n pa~san filosofi/an u(peilh&fasin. Didymus, however, in his work On the Pythagorean Philosophy, relates that Theano of Crotona was the first woman who cultivated philosophy and composed poems. The Hellenic philosophy then, according to some, apprehended the truth accidentally, dimly, partially; as others will have it, was set a-going by the devil. Several suppose that certain powers, descending from heaven, inspired the whole of philosophy.393
391
Clement uses Pythagoras and the Hebrew Bible to argue against the practice of exposure in 2.18.92-3 and compares the care of animal mothers to their offspring as a calling for human mothers to care for theirs; cf. 5.1.8; 5.14. 392
Clement seems to mark the beginning of a long tradition of Christian writers mentioning Theano. Eusebius writes that Pythagoras was succeeded by his wife Theano, PE 10.14.14; Gregory of Nazianzus, Contra Julianum imperatorem, 35.592.19; possibly in John of Damascus, Passo magni martyris Artemii, 29.14. 393
Strom. 1.16.80. Translation from Roberts-Donaldson. Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry and Iamblichus also use Didymus of Alexandria – a first century writer - as a source for Pythagoras and Pythagoreans. For the fragments see M. Schmidt, Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmente (1854). Cf., Jaap Mansfeld and David T. Runia, Aetiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer: The Sources (New York: Brill, 1997); Eleanor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006); R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1968), 274-9.
125 Clement (150-215 CE) appeals to Theano alongside several other philosophers as having a grasp on the truth of the afterlife in 4.7.44, “Qeanw_ ga_r h( Puqagorikh_ gra&fei: h}n ga_r a2n> tw ~ o1nti toi=j kakoi=j eu)wxi/a o( bi/oj ponhreusame/noij: e1peita teleutw~sin, ei0 mh_ h}n a)qa&na toj h( yuxh&, e3rmaion o( qa&natoj,” “For the Pythagorean Theano writes, ‘Life were indeed a feast to the wicked, who, having done evil, then die; were not the soul immortal, death would be a godsend.’”394 In his third reference to Theano, Clement points to many great women who were popular in Christian traditions - Judith and Esther - as well as Greek (female) philosophers, poets, and artists: ou)xi Qeanw_ men h( Puqagorikh_ ei0j tosou~ton h{ken filosofi/aj w(j pro_j to_n perie/rgwj a)pido&nta kai ei0po&nta «kalo_j o( ph~xuj» «a)ll’ ou dhmo&sioj» a)pokri/nasqai. th~j au)th~j fe/retai semno&thtoj ka)kei=no to_ a)po&fqegma: e0rwthqei=sa ga&r, postai/a gunh_ a)po_ a)ndro_j ei0j to_ qesmofo&rion ka&teisin, «a)po_ men i0di/ou kai paraxrh~ma» e1fh, «a)po_ de tou~ a)llotri/ou ou)depw&pote». nai mh_n kai Qemistw_ h( Zwi5lou h( Lamyakhnh_ h( Leonte/wj gunh_ tou~ Lamyakhnou~ ta_ 0Epikou&reia e0filoso&fei kaqa&per Mui=a h( Qeanou~j quga&thr ta_ Puqago&reia kai 0Arignw&th h( ta_ peri Dionu&sou grayame/nh: Did not Theano the Pythagorean make such progress in philosophy, that to him who looked intently at her, and said, “Your arm is beautiful,” she answered “Yes, but it is not public.” Characterized by the same propriety, there is also reported the following reply. When asked when a woman after being with her husband attends the Thesmophoria, said, “From her own husband at once, from a stranger never.” Themisto too, of Lampsacus, the daughter of Zoilus, the wife of Leontes of Lampsacus, studied the Epicurean philosophy, as Myia the daughter of Theano the Pythagorean, and Arignote, who wrote the history of Dionysius.395
394
I have been unable to locate another ancient author who preserves this tradition, Cf., Strom. 4.8 (Translation from ANF Roberts-Donaldson), where Clement argues that women should philosophize just like men, although he asserts the superiority of men in all things. Clement mentions two exemplary Pythagoreans in his introduction to this section. 395
Strom. 4.19.122. Translation from ANF Roberts-Donaldson.
126 Theano’s exposed arm, her wit, and her modesty were previously highlighted by Plutarch (46-120 CE). He uses the first teaching to exhort Eurydice to remain silent outside of the home, having her speech modestly covered like her body in Advice to the Bride and Groom: 9H Qeanw_ pare/fhne th_n xei=ra periballome/nh to_ i9ma&tion. ei0po&ntoj de/ tinoj “kalo_j o( ph~xuj,“ “a)ll’ ou) dhmo&sioj,“ e1fh. dei= de mh_ mo&non to_n ph~xun a)lla_ mhde to_n lo&gon dhmo&sion ei]nai th~j sw&fronoj, kai th_n fwnh_n w(j a)pogu&mnwsin ai0dei=sqai kai fula&ttesqai pro_j tou_j e0kto&j: e0nora~tai ga_r au)th ~ kai pa&qoj kai h}qoj kai dia&qesij lalou&shj. Theano, in putting on her cloak about her, exposed her arm. Somebody exclaimed, ‘A lovely arm.’ ‘But not for public,’ said she. Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speech as well, ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her feelings, character, and disposition. 396 For Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE), the use of philosophy by women is understood as both pragmatic (for modesty and practical living) as well as for the enrichment of the soul (e.g., philosophical reflection). Her husband, Pollianus is to seek teachers outside of the home and to bring to his wife both what he thinks that she needs and what interests her.397
396
Plut. Mor. 142c (Babbitt, LCL). The shortening of the quote is insignificant. Plutarch usually relied on his imperfect memory for quoting sources; Plutarch’s Quotations, comp. William C. Helmbold and Edward N. O’Neil (Baltimore: American Philological Association, 1959), ix; John Ferguson knows that it appears in Plutarch, but offers no further reflection, Clement of Alexandria, Twayne’s World Authors Series, ed. Sylvia Bowman, vol. 289 (New York: Twayne, 1974), 89. None of Clement’s quotations of Theano receive treatment in Lilla, Clement. I could not find detailed treatment of it in John Patrick, although he does mention Clement’s attitude towards women in Clement of Alexandria (London: Blackwood, 1914), 170. 397
In the case that the husband is younger and marries an older, more educated woman, she is to teach him, Mor. 754d; cf., Gillian Clark, “Roman Women,” G&R, 2nd ser. 28, no. 2, Jubilee Year (1981): 193-212.
127 Kai su_ men w3ran e1xwn h1dh filosofei=n toi=j met’ a)podei/cewj kai kataskeuh~j legome/noij e0piko&smei to_ h}qoj, e0ntugxa&nwn kai plhsia&zwn toi=j w)felou~si: th ~ de gunaiki pantaxo&qen to_ xrh&simon suna&gw w3sper ai9 me/littai kai fe/rwn au)to_j e0n seautw ~ metadi/dou kai prosdiale/gou, fi/louj au)th ~ poiw~n kai sunh&qeij tw~n lo&gwn tou_j a)ri/stouj. path_r men ga&r e0ssi au)th ~ kai po&tnia mh&thr h)de kasi/gnhtoj: ou)x h{tton de semno_n a)kou~sai gameth~j legou&shj a1ner.a)ta_r su& moi/ e0ssi kaqhghth_j kai filo&sofoj kai dida&skaloj tw~n kalli/stwn kai qeiota&twn. ta_ de toiau~ta maqh&mata prw~ton a)fi/sthsi tw~n a)to&pwn ta_j gunai=kaj: ai0sxunqh&setai ga_r o)rxei=sqai gunh_ gewmetrei=n manqa&nousa, kai farma&kwn e0pw da_j ou) prosde/cetai toi=j Pla&twnoj e0pa dome/nh lo&goij kai toi=j Cenofw~ntoj. a2n de/ tij e0pagge/llhtai kaqairei=n th_n selh&nhn, gela&setai th_n a)maqi/an kai th_n a)belteri/an tw~n tau~ta peiqome/nwn gunaikw~n, a)strologi/aj mh_ a)nhko&wj e1xousa kai peri 0Aglaoni/khj a)khkoui=a th~j 9Hgh&toroj tou~ Qettalou~ qugatro_j o3ti tw~n e0kleiptikw~n e1mpeiroj ou}sa panselh&nwn kai proeidui=a to_n xro&non, e0n w { sumbai/nei th_n selh&nhn u(po_ gh~j skia~j a(li/skesqai, parekrou&eto kai sune/peiqe ta_j gunai=kaj w(j au)th_ kaqairou~sa th_n selh&nhn. Besides, Pollianus, you already possess sufficient maturity to study philosophy, and I beg that you will beautify your character with the aid of discourses which are attended by logical demonstration and mature deliberation, seeking the company and instruction of teachers who will help you. And for your wife you must collect from every source what is useful, as do the bees, and carrying it within your own self impart it to her, and then discuss it with her, and make the best of these doctrines her favourite and familiar themes. For to her, “Thou art a father and precious-loved mother, Yea, and a brother as well.” No less ennobling is it for a man among other things hear his wife say, “My dear husband, Nay, but thou art to me guide, philosopher, and teacher in all that is most lovely and divine.” Studies of this sort, in the first place, divert women from all untoward conduct; for a woman studying geometry will be ashamed to be a dancer, and she will not swallow any beliefs in magic charms while she is under the charm of Plato’s or Xenophon’s words. And if anybody professes power to pull down the moon from the sky, she will laugh at the ignorance and stupidity of women who believe these things, inasmuch as she herself is not unschooled in astronomy, and has read in the books about Aglaonice, the daughter of Hegetor of Thessaly, and how she, through being thoroughly acquainted with the periods of the full moon when it is subject to eclipse, and, knowing beforehand the time when the moon was due to be overtaken by the earth’s shadow, imposed upon the women, and made them all believe that she was drawing down the moon.398 After citing a number of exemplary women, Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) asserts that she is to learn Plato and Xenophon in order to help her live according to reason instead of being 398
Plut. Mor. 145b-c (Babbitt, LCL).
128 attracted to dancing or magic (145c). Plutarch indicates that Eurydice learned some philosophy at home from her parents before she was married and she is to continue that education under the direction of her husband. As a married woman, she is to adorn herself with the teachings of Theano, heroic women, and Cornelia399 (who educated her sons) rather than with jewels (145e).400 The fourth reference in Clement (c. 150-217 CE) is very well-known. It is extant only as its chreia form and could have as its source an original moral teaching from Theano herself.401 This teaching was identified as a chreia by the ancient rhetorician Aelius Theon (early 2 nd CE). h( de pusmatikh_ toiau&th e0sti/n, oi[on Qeanw_ h( Puqagorikh_ filo&sofoj e0rwthqei=sa u(po& tinoj, postai/a gunh_ a)p’a)ndro_j kaqara_ ei0j to_ qesmoforei=on ka&teisin, ei]pen, a)po_ men tou~ i0di/ou paraxrh~ma, a)po_ de tou~ a)llotri/ou ou)de/pote. The chreia with an inquiry is like this, for example: Theano, the Pythagorean philosopher, on being asked by someone how long after intercourse with a man does a woman go in purity to the Thesmorphorion, said: ‘With your own, immediately; with another’s, never.’402
399
See below, section 3.3.
400
The picture painted here - that women learned philosophy from their fathers or husbands - is not intended to be one-sided. It is my understanding that wealthy women, particularly widows, were well-positioned in the first century to do whatever they wanted and were therefore certainly able to find teachers (whether male or female) willing to come into their home and teach them and their children. 401
For a detailed study on chreia, see Ronald Hock and Edward O’Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, SBL Texts and Translation Series, ed. Hans Dieter Betz and Edward O’Neil, vol. 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); for the conversion of quotes into chreia in ancient epistles see the excellent discussion and examples in M. Luther Stirewalt, Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography, ed. Marvin A. Sweeney (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 43-64. 402
Text and translation is from Hock and O’Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, pg 86; cf., James Butts’ dissertation, “The ‘Progymnasmata’ of Theon” (PhD diss.,
129 Significantly, everywhere the quotation appears in antiquity except for Iamblichus, a question is part of the formula. In Clement (150-215 CE, Stom. 4.19.122), Aelius Theon (fl. mid 1st CE, 98.3), and Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE, Diog. Laert. 8.22) this teaching of Theano always is in the form of the question. The teaching appears in Iamblichus VP 132,403 but he is uncertain who said it, which may explain why there is no question. This consistency demonstrates the role of Theano as a wise-person: one to whom questions are asked and wisdom is derived. In Aelius Theon, Theano is quoted along with the renowned Greek philosophers Plato, Socrates, and Diogenes the Cynic, not to mention Pythagoras himself (the quote from Pythagoras is not in close proximity to Theano). Aelius Theon remembers Theano not as the student, wife, or daughter of Pythagoras, but simply as a Pythagorean philosopher.
Biographers of Pythagoras: More Teachings of Theano The first century and Pythagorean404 and neo-Pythagorean405 traditions concerning women in Pythagoreanism are certainly related to the memory of Pythagoras himself as reflected both in his biographers and other ancient references. Pythagoras had Claremont, CA, 1986), 190-2; Other critical editions are available from Les Belles Lettres and L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1854; repr. 1966), 59130. Belles Letres and Spengel’s edition use the same notation as TLG, where it appears as 98.3. Note the difference in notation. 403
Text and translation for Iamblichus is from De Vita Pythagorica, trans. John Dillon (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). 404
As previously identified and discussed above in Cicero (106-43 BCE), Seneca (1-65 CE), and Plutarch (46-120 CE). 405
women.
As preserved in the neo-Pythagorean corpus which include letters attributed to
130 many biographers, but only three are largely extant: the biographies of Diogenes Laertius (fl.c. 3rd CE); Iamblichus (280-333 CE), Porphry (233-306 CE).406 Many other biographies existed in ancient times and all extant biographers preserve important traditions related to women in Pythagoreanism and obviously depend on more ancient sources. Most important is Aristotle’s lost work on Pythagoras. J. A. Philip argues from the fragments that Aristotle actually wrote two monographs on Pythagoras.407 Philip also introduces the possibility that the root material concerning Pythagoras in the biographers could have Aristotle’s monographs as their ultimate source. Pythagorean women were leading characters in Old Comedy due to peculiar dietary habits according to Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE).408 Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) preserves several traditions regarding Pythagorean women. He notes that the involvement of women in Pythagoreanism was satirized by Cratinus in the Pythagorizing Woman (the only extant fragment of this play is Diog. Laert. 8.37).409 Diogenes (fl. 3rd CE) says that Pythagoras entrusted his teachings to his daughter Damo, exhorting her not
406
Photius (c.820-c.891 CE) is also available but much later than our time period.
407
J. A. Philip, “Aristotle’s Monograph on Pythagoras,” TAPA 94 (1963): 194; cf., Philip, “Aristotle’s Sources for Pythagorean Doctrine,” Pheonix 17, no. 4 (1963): 251-65. 408 409
Walter Burkett, Lore and Science, 198
There were two plays in the classical period, both are not extant, entitled Pythagorizousa, one by Cratinus (see in TLG Kock frag. 6; Mieneke Pyth 1) and one by Alexis (pokes fun at the Pythagorean diet, cf., frags. 196-99 Kock; Pyth. 1-3 in Mieneke). Taylor also writes that Philochorus also dedicated a work to Pythagorean women according to FGrHist 328 T 1 (ed. Jacoby), Pythagoreans, 33. However, I think that Taylor has confused his citation because I cannot verify from FGrHist 328 T 1 that it has anything to do with Pythagorean women, cf., Lawrence J. Bliquez, “A Note on the Didymus Papyrus XII.35,” CJ 67, no. 4 (1972): 356.
131 to make the teachings public (Diog. Laert. 8.42), citing the letter of Lysis to Hipparchus as his source. Damo said that she was faithful to her father’s wishes because “she was only a woman.” This tradition is apparently ancient and popular. An extant letter of Lysis to Hipparchus in Thesleff does not mention Theano, but says that Pythagoras entrusted his teachings to Damo and she in turn taught them to her daughter Bistala.410 According to Diogenes, Pythagoras’s son Telauges succeeded his father but wrote nothing. Pythagoras’s wife Theano, on the other hand, did write and is remembered by her philosophy with the familiar teaching: ]Hn kai Thlau&ghj ui9o_j au)toi=j, o4j kai diede/cato to_n pate/ra kai kata& tinaj 0Empedokle/ouj kaqhgh&sato: 9Ippo&boto&j ge/ toi/ fhsi le/gein 0Empedokle/a, Th&laugej, klute kou~re Qeanou~j Puqago&rew& te. su&ggramma de fe/retai tou~ Thlau&gouj ou)de/n, th~j de mhtro_j au)tou~ Qeanou~j tina. a)lla_ kai/ fasin au)th_n e0rwthqei=san postai/a gunh_ a)p’ a)ndro_j kaqareu&ei, fa&nai, “a)po_ men tou~ i0di/ou paraxrh~ma, a)po_ de tou~ a)llotri/ou ou)de/pote.“ th ~ de pro_j to_n i1dion a1ndra mellou&sh poreu&esqai parh &nei a3ma toi=j e0ndu&masi kai th_n ai0sxu&nhn a)poti/qesqai, a)nistame/nhn te pa&lin a3m ’ au)toi=sin a)nalamba&nein. e0rwthqei=sa, “poi=a;“, e1fh, “tau~ta di’ a4 gunh_ ke/klhmai.” They also had a son Telauges, who succeeded his father and, according to some, was Empedocles’s instructor. At all events Hippobotus makes Empedocles say: Telauges, famed son of Theano and Pythagoras. Telauges wrote nothing, so far as we know, but his mother Theano wrote a few things. Further, a story is told that being asked how many days it was before a woman becomes pure after intercourse, she replied, ‘With her own husband at once, with another man never.’ And she advised a woman going in to her own husband to put off her shame with her clothes, and on leaving him to put it on again along with them. Asked, ‘Put on what?,’ she replied, ‘What makes me to be called a woman.’411
410 411
Lysis, Ep. 114.5.
Diog. Laert. 8.43 (Hicks, LCL). The shame of a married woman appearing naked before a man other than her husband is discussed in Douglas L. Cairns, “‘Off with her AIDWS’: Herodotus 1.8.3-4,” CQ 46, no. 1 (1996): 78-83.
132 Diogenes also says that Hermippus writes that as Pythagoras was dying, men sent their wives to him to learn his philosophy and they were known as the “Pythagorean women” (Diog. Laert. 8.1.41). Iamblichus (245-325 CE) presents a Pythagoras who is persuaded by his wife Theano (or another woman) to end marital infidelity in Croton. a0palla&cai de le/getai tou_j Krotwnia&taj kai tw~n pallaki/dwn kai kaqo&lou th~j pro_j ta_j a)neggu&ouj gunai=kaj o(mili/aj. pro_j Deinw_ ga_r th_n Bronti/nou gunai=ka, tw~n Puqagorei/wn e9no&j, ou}san sofh&n te kai peritth_n th_n yuxh&n, h{j e0sti kai to_ kalo_n kai peri/blepton r(h~ma, to_ th_n gunai=ka dei=n qu&ein au)qhmero_n a)nistame/nhn a)po_ tou~ e9auth~j a)ndro&j, o3 tinej ei0j Qeanw _ a)nafe/rousi, pro_j dh_ tau&thn parelqou&saj ta_j tw~n Krotwniatw~n gunai=kaj parakale/sai peri tou~ sumpei=sai to_n Puqago&ran dialexqh~nai peri th~j pro_j au)ta_j swfrosu&nhj toi=j a)ndra&sin au)tw~n. o4 dh_ kai sumbh~nai, kai th~j gunaiko_j e0paggeilame/nhj kai tou~ Puqago&rou dialexqe/ntoj kai tw~n Krotwniatw~n peisqe/ntwn a)naireqh~nai panta&pasi th_n to&te e0pipola&zousan a)kolasi/an. He is said also to have freed the Crotoniates entirely from concubines and from intercourse with unwedded women. For to Deino, wife of Brontinus, one of the Pythagoreans, a woman of wise and exceptional spirit, to whom also belongs a saying noble and admired by all: ‘the wife ought to sacrifice on the very day she arose from sleep with her own husband.’ (which saying some ascribe to Theano); to her, then, the wives of the Crotoniates came, and requested her to join them in persuading Pythagoras to talk about the chastity due them for their own husbands. This, in fact, came about: the women passed on the message, Pythagoras spoke to the Crotoniates, and the were persuaded to altogether abolish the licentiousness then prevalent.412 It is important that Iamblichus has Pythagoras teach marital fidelity, something that both philosophers, ancient law, and practice are divided on according to time period and geography. It is well known that the prevailing view in the ancient world from the point of view of law and some moralists was that the wife had to be chaste in a marriage, but
412
VP 27.132
133 the husband could be free in his sexual activity. 413 Indeed, the so-called neoPythagoreans present separate views on this issue. 414 Iamblichus (245-325 CE) preserves the tradition mentioned above that Pythagoras left his writings to his daughter Damo who entrusted the writings to her daughter Bitale.415 Telauges is unknown to Iamblichus’s source.416 Iamblichus tells us that due to persecutions, Pythagorean philosophy was passed on from parents to children, and daughters and wives were crucial to this process.417 Iamblichus also remarks on the education of Pythagoras’s daughter: gh&manta de th_n gennhqei=san au)tw ~ qugate/ra, meta_ tau~ta de Me/nwni tw ~ Krotwnia&th sunoikh&sasan, a)gagei=n ou3twj, w3ste parqe/non men ou}san h(gei=sqai tw~n xorw~n, gunai=ka de genome/nhn prw&thn prosie/nai toi=j bwmoi=j 413
See the extensive treatment for ancient Greece in Sue Blundell, Women in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); cf., Kenneth Royce Moore, Sex and the Second-Best City (New York: Routledge, 2005), 133-6; for generalizations of the Roman period, Helene Peet Foley and Elaine Fantham et al., Women in the Classical World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 294-306; some detailed interpretation of Roman law is available in Aline Rousselle, Porneia, trans. Felicia Pheasant (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983; repr. 1988), 78-92; the double standard for adultery is explored in Roman literature by Rebecca Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 237-46; cf. the punishments for adultery in Rome by Marilyn B. Skinner, Sexuality in Greece and Roman Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 208. 414
Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists,” 380-411.
415
VP 28.146.
416
VP, pg 163 n. 23
417
VP 253. Cf., Judith P. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society. Women and the Elite Family (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); P. Setälä; R. Berg; R. Hälikkä; M. Keltanen; J. Pölönen; V. Vuolanto, Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002); Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Beryl Rawson, The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Roman Women: Their History and Habits (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986).
134 “Also when he married, he so educated the daughter that was born to him, and who afterwards married the Crotonian Meno, that while unmarried she was a choirleader, while as wife she held the first place among those who worshipped at altars.”418 Iamblichus crowns his De Vita Pythagorica with a list of 218 male and 17 female Pythagorean philosophers.419 Puqagori/dej de g u n a i = k e j ai9 e0pifane/statai: Timu&xa gunh_ [h(] Mulli/a tou~ Krotwnia&tou, Filtu_j quga&thr Qeo&frioj tou~ Krotwnia&tou, Bunda&kou a)delfh&, 0Okkelw_ kai 0Ekkelw_ tw~n Leukanw~n, Xeilwnij quga&thr Xei/lwnoj tou~ Lakedaimoni/ou, Krathsi/kleia La&kaina gunh_ Klea&noroj tou~ Lakedaimoni/ou, Qeanw_ gunh_ tou~ Metaponti/nou Broti/nou, Mui=a gunh_ Mi/lwnoj tou~ Krotwnia&tou, Lasqe/neia 0Arka&dissa, 9Abrote/leia 9Abrote/louj quga&thr tou~ Taranti/nou, 0Exekra&teia Fliasi/a, Turshnij Subari=tij, Peisirro&dh Tarantini/j, Qea&dousa La&kaina, Boiw_ 0Argei/a, Babelu&ka 0Argei/a, Kleai/xma a)delfh_ Au)toxari/da tou~ La&kwnoj. The most illustrious Pythagorean women are Timycha the wife of Myllias the Crotonian; Phyltis the daughter of Theophrius the Crotonian; Byndacis the sister of Ocellus; Lucanians; Chilonis the daughter of Chilon the Lacedenonian; Cratesiclea the Lacedemonian the wife of the Lacedemonian Cleanor; Theane the wife of Brontinus of Metapontum; Mya, the wife of Milon the Crotonian; Lasthenia the Arcadian; Abrotelia the daughter of Abroteles the Tarentine; Echecratia the Phliasian; Tyrsenis the Sybarite; Pisirrhonde the Tarentine; Nisleadusa, the Lacedemonian; Byro the Argive; Babelyma the Argive, and Cleaechma the sister of Autocharidas the Lacedemonian.420 Nine of these women have their husbands or family members listed with them as philosophers: Tmycha, Phyltis, Byndacis, Chilonis, Cratesiclea, Theane, Mya, Abrotelia, and Cleaechma. Six are listed strictly on their own merit: Lucanians, Lasthenia, Echecratia, Tyrsenis, Pisirrhonde, Nisleadusa, Byro, Babelyma. All of these women are 418
Iambl. VP 30.170.5 (Dillon and Hershbell, 185).
419
For notes and bibliography on this list, see Burkett, Lore and Science, 105 n 40; Sarah Pomery, Spartan Women (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 11. Iamblichus’s student Sopater has a similar list in Photius, 161; Christian Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol 8. 420
Iambl. VP 36.258 (Dillon and Hershbell, 259).
135 known to us only through Iamblichus. Because he gives nothing more than names, and they are available nowhere else, it is unfortunately impossible to do anything but note that he presents the list. The most Iamblichus (c. 245-325 BCE) can tell us, in my opinion, is that neo-Pythagoreans of his day and recent memory had been friendly to the idea that women played an important role in the history of that school. The entrusting of writings to family rather than friends may indicate that Pythagoreans either in the time of Iamblichus in particular or possibly Pythagoras himself were not integrated into their communities. This lack of integration would be caused by the secret nature of Pythagorean teachings, the strange diet,421 and displacement caused by wars and changing rulers. All of these factors would cause alienation from friends and motivate the Pythagoreans to pass on their teachings strictly to students (i.e., members of the community) and especially family members. The production of texts within families is a deviation from the production of literature in the first century by Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and Maecenas, who were integrated into patronage relationships. 422 We see the alienation of Pythagoreans from their communities due to their secrecy and diet in Iamblichus, 423 where an expectant mother, Timycha, bites off her tongue rather than share Pythagorean philosophy. Iamblichus concludes, “ou3twj dussugkata/qetoi proj
421
Seneca himself experienced alienation due to his meatless diet which was inspired by Pythagorean teachings, Ep. 108. 422
Raymond Starr, “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World,” CQ 37, no. 1 (1987): 213-23. 423
Burkert discusses problems in the earliest Pythagorean communities in Lore and Science, 106.
136 taj e0cwterikaj fili/aj h]san, ei0 kai basilikai tuga/noin,” “So slow were they to make friendships outside the school, even if they were friendships with kings.”424 Porphyry (234-305 CE) indicates that the magistrates of Croton ordered the boys and girls and women to learn from Pythagoras.425 Theano is particularly noted as an illustrious Crotonian woman, but Porphyry does not include any of her teachings. Porphry writes that an association of women was formed for the purpose of learning from Pythagoras (kai gunaikw=n su/llogoj au0tw=? kataskeua/sqh) and they also learned his philosophy alongside men and children. Pythagoras’s teachings concerning reincarnation and the secrecy that he enjoined on his followers is also noted (19). As late as the 16th century CE, the Pythagorizing women are remembered in Holinshed’s Chronicles (chapter 10, published 1586): But sith those bookes are now perished, and the most of the said Ilands remaine vtterlie vnknowen, euen to our owne selues (for who is able in our time to say where is Glota, Hiucrion, Etta, Iduna, Armia, Aesarea, Barsa, Isiandium, Icdelis, Xantisma, Indelis, Siata, Ga. Andros or Edros, Siambis, Xanthos, Ricnea, Menapia, whose names onelie are left in memorie by ancient writers, but I saie their places not so much as heard of in our daies) I meane (God willing) to set downe so manie of them with their commodities, as I do either know by Leland, or am otherwise instructed of by such as are of credit. Women Associated with Socrates and the Academy There are three women that Socrates (469-399 BCE) claims as his teachers: Phaenerete, Diotima, and Aspasia of Miletus.426 In an argument concerning pregnancy
424
VP 31.192-94 (Dillon and Hershbell, 201). Note the friendship/patronage language in the passage. 425 426
Porph. VP 18-19.
Cheryl Glenn, Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997), n. 17:
137 and birth, Socrates claims to have authority based on training in midwifery that he received from his mother, Phaenerete.427 Unlike other traditions concerning ancient philosophically educated women (such as Perictione 428 in the neo-Pythagorean pseudepigraphon), the teachings of Diotima and Aspasia are connected with their earliest appearance in the tradition.429 Diotima gained fame in Socrates’s representation of her in Plato’s Symposium. Aspasia of Miletus is remembered as an apt rhetorician by Plato (429-347 BCE), Xenophon (430-354 BCE), Cicero (106-43 BCE), Plutarch (50-120 CE), and Athenaeus
“Most scholars (Edmund F. Bloedow, Robert Flaceliere, David M. Halperin, Roger Just, Eva C. Keuls, Hans Licht, Josiah Ober, for instance) have labeled Aspasia a courtesan, schooled in intellectual and social arts. But both Eve Cantarella and William Courtney argue that the Athenian suspicion and misunderstanding of such a powerful, political, non-Athenian, unmarriageable woman living with their controversial leader, Pericles, led automatically to the sexualized and undeserved label of hetaera; Nicole Loraux refers to Aspasia as a foreigner and as a nonpolitician (Invention); Mary Ellen Waithe calls her ‘a rhetorician and a member of the Periclean philosophic circle,’ History, 75; and Susan Cole writes only of Aspasia’s intellectual influence and measure of literacy, 225.” 427
Pl. Tht. 149a.
428
George Boas discusses the sources regarding the life of Plato in “Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato,” The Philosophical Review 57, no. 5 (1948); Sarah B. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 68; Ekaterina Haskins, “Pythagorean Women,” in Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians, ed. Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran (Westport: Preager, 2005), 316. 429
Harry Neumann, “Diotima’s Concept of Love,” AJP 86, no. 1 (1965); F. C. White, “Love and Beauty in Plato’s Symposium,” JHS 109 (1989): 149-57; Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, “As Diotima Saw Socrates,” Arion 4, no. 3 (1997); Pl. Sym. 208. Diotima’s speech is from 210d-212a. Diotima may be a real person or a rhetorical creation of Plato. Her existence, however, cannot be dismissed on the basis that women did not participate in philosophy. The best explanation in my opinion is that she is a fictional character based on an actual female philosopher, but there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the issue.
138 (fl. 200 CE).430 In Plato’s Menexenus, Socrates claimed to have learned rhetoric from Aspasia who taught many others, including Pericles (235e). In the first century, Plutarch takes this situation as historical (Per. 24.7). The sexual availability of the male philosophers with one another and their students could have contributed to the ideal of the educated hetaira.431 The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Aspasia was a prostitute and ran a brothel in Athens. 432 However, Anthony J. Podlecki has demonstrated that the evidence for this is not very strong: the argument is based on sources that either “tell the truth in jest” or are openly attacking the Socratic circle by casting it in terms of sexual disrepute.433 It is significant that Aspasia is not an Athenian subject to the strict ideals of the secluded and chaste wife. Tradition indicates that somehow she read Plato and came to Athens to learn from him and subsequently started her own school for girls, and at the same time the school was considered a brothel. Of equal importance is the Platonic concept that women should be held in common and rule of the city should be done by wise men and women – this sexual availability can certainly lead to the conceptualization of Aspasia’s school as a brothel. The atmosphere of philosophical discussion in Athens encouraged and glorified sexual activity between men
430
Xen. Oec. 3.14-15; Pl. Menex. 235e; Ar. Ach. 526; Plut. Per. 24; Suid. 1.387.2.15-24 (no 4202) = ‘Aspasia,’ PG 117, 1230; Theodoret, Therapeutike 1.17. 431
Leslie Kurke, “Inventing the ‘Hetaira’: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece,” CA 16, no. 1 (1997): 106-150. 432
Madeline M. Henry is the most ardent champion of the point of view that Aspasia is completely lost in the rhetoric of men, Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and her Biographical Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 433
Anthony J. Podlecki, Pericles and his Circle (London: Routledge, 1998), 110.
139 and their companions – be they male or female students.434 The appearance of women in public in classical Athens sexualizes the woman, to the point that Aspasia and her prostitutes were seen as the cause of war. The earliest writer that says Aspasia ran a brothel is in Antisthenes (444-365 BCE), Acharnians 524, and he makes a similar accusation of Pericles’s son, Xanthipppos, who lived with Archestratos, who “plied a trade similar to that of women in the cheaper brothels.”435 Considering these points, it is best to remember Aspasia as the beloved wife of Pericles, which may conflict with her reputation as a courtesan.436 Her reputation as a courtesan may well be the result of her public activity in the Socratic circle, which gave men the opportunity to over sexualize her memory. Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE) writes of Aspasia: kai 0Aspasi/a de h( Swkratikh_ e0neporeu&eto plh&qh kalw~n gunaikw~n, kai e0plh&qunen a)po_ tw~n tau&thj e9tairi/dwn h( 9Ella&j, w(j kai o( xari/eij 0Aristofa&nhj parashmai/netai, le/gwn [to_n Peloponnhsiako_n po&lemon] o3ti Periklh~j dia_ to_n 0Aspasi/aj e1rwta kai ta_j a(rpasqei/saj a)p’ au)th~j qerapai/naj u(po_ Megare/wn a)nerri/pisen to_ deino&n. And Aspasia, the friend of Socrates, imported great numbers of beautiful women, and Greece was entirely filled with her courtesans; as that witty writer 434
Eva Cantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, trans. Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 17-93; Craig A. Williams Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 62-95; David M. Halperin, How to do the History of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); Martha C. Nussbaum, “Eros and Ethical Norms: Philosophers Respond to a Cultural Dilemma,” in The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 55-87; Giulia Sissa, Sex and Sexuality in the Ancient World, trans. George Staunton (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 62-9. 435 436
Anthony J. Podlecki, Pericles and his Circle (London: Routledge, 1998).
C. Fornara and L. Samons II, Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Stephen V. Tracy, Pericles: A Sourcebook and Reader (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 97.
140 Aristophanes relates [ Acharn 524 ], saying that the Peloponnesian war was excited by Pericles, [570] on account of his love for Aspasia, and on account of the girls who had been carried away from her by the Megarians.437 According to Xenophon (430-354 BCE), Socrates learned about marriage from Aspasia: Di/’ ou)x w3j pote e0gw_ 0Aspasi/aj h1kousa: e1fh ga_r ta_j a)gaqa_j promnhstri/daj meta_ men a)lhqei/aj ta)gaqa_ diaggellou&saj deina_j ei]nai suna&gein a)nqrw&pouj ei0j khdei/an, yeudome/naj d’ ou)k e0qe/lein e0painei=n: tou_j ga_r e0capathqe/ntaj a3ma misei=n a)llh&louj te kai th_n promnhsame/nhn. a4 dh_ kai e0gw_ peisqeij o)rqw~j e1xein h(gou~mai ou)k e0cei=nai/ moi peri sou~ le/gein e0painou~nti ou)den o3 ti a2n mh_ a)lhqeu&w. “Not so indeed: I can quote Aspasia against you. She once told me that good matchmakers are successful in making marriages only when the good reports they carry to and fro are true; false reports she would not recommend, for the victims of deception hate one another and the matchmaker too. I am convinced that this is sound, and so I think it is not open to me to say anything in your praise that I can’t say truthfully.” 438 And on the relationships between husbands and wives, Socrates says: Oi[j de su_ le/geij a)gaqa_j ei]nai gunai=kaj, w} Sw&kratej, h} au)toi tau&taj e0pai/deusan; Ou)den oi[on to_ e0piskopei=sqai. susth&sw de/ soi e0gw_ kai 0Aspasi/an, h4 e0pisthmone/steron e0mou~ soi tau~ta pa&nta e0pidei/cei. nomi/zw de gunai=ka koinwno_n a)gaqh_n oi1kou ou}san pa&nu a)nti/rropon ei]nai tw ~ a)ndri e0pi to_ a)gaqo&n. e1rxetai men ga_r ei0j th_n oi0ki/an dia_ tw~n tou~ a)ndro_j pra&cewn ta_ kth&mata w(j e0pi to_ polu&, dapana~tai de dia_ tw~n th~j gunaiko_j tamieuma&twn ta_ plei=sta: kai eu} men tou&twn gignome/nwn au1contai oi9 oi]koi, kakw~j de tou&twn prattome/nwn oi9 oi]koi meiou~ntai. oi]mai de/ soi kai tw~n a1llwn e0pisthmw~n tou_j a)ci/wj lo&gou e9ka&sthn e0rgazome/nouj e1xein a2n e0pidei=cai/ soi, ei0 ti prosdei=sqai nomi/zeij. ‘But what of the husbands who, as you say, have good wives, Socrates? Did they train them themselves?’ ‘There’s nothing like investigation. I will introduce Aspasia to you, and she will explain the whole matter to you with more knowledge than I possess.’ ‘I think that the wife who is a good partner in the household 437
Ath. 13.25.24. Translation in Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists or, Banquet of the learned of Athenaeus, trans. C. D. Yonge, 3 vols (London: H.G. Bohn, 1853-1854). She is also mentioned in Plut. Per. 24.2; Arist. Ach. 527; Thuc. 3.19; D.S. 12; Pl. Mx. 235e. A herm is in the Sala delle Muse, Vatican (inv. 272) with A0spasi/a inscribed on the lower shaft, and due to the unlikely location of the inscription and the period clothing, the statue is dated in the fifth century BCE. Richer, Portraits, pl. 64 [pg 99]. 438
Xen. Mem. 2.6.36 (Marchant, LCL).
141 contributes just as much as her husband to its good; because the incomings for the most part are the result of the husband’s exertions, but the outgoings are controlled mostly by the wife’s dispensation. If both do their part well, the estate is increased; if they act incompetently, it is diminished. If you think you want to know about other branches of knowledge, I fancy I can show you people who acquit themselves creditably in any one of them.’439 Socrates quotes Aspasia here in a discussion with his friends concerning the nature of marriage. Socrates has Aspasia say that the wife is just as important as the husband in a marriage: the wife is in control of the outgoings of the house, and the incoming is the responsibilities of the husband. We should note well: The Socratic/Aspasian speech also quotes the proverb, “Nothing in excess” (247e) and urges survivors to practice self-reliance. The speech explains that depending on oneself is the best route to happiness. Be temperate (sophron) as well as courageous and wise (andreios kai phronimos) it counsels (248a).440 The speech in Menexenus attributed to Aspasia and Socrates refers to events long after their deaths, and the attribution of the speech to her was seen as a joke, but her reputation as a philosopher and teacher of rhetoric is undeniable. 441 Furthermore, while the rhetorical usage of her tradition is obvious in Menexenus (particularly the juxtaposition of philosophy [male] and rhetoric [female]), this does not preclude an historical Aspasia which is closely related to the figure that is so prominent in the conceptualization of the beginnings of philosophy by the ancients.
439
Xen. Oec. 3.15 (Marchant, LCL).
440
S. Sara Monoson, “Remembering Pericles: The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato’s Menexenus,” Political Theory 26, no. 4 (1998): 489-513. 441
Lucinda Coventry, “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Menexenus,” JHS 109 (1989), 5; Susan D. Collins and Devin Stauffer, “The Challenge of Plato’s ‘Menexenus,’” The Review of Politics 61, no. 1 (1999): 89-90.
142 The other notable woman connected with the Socratic tradition is Diotima of Mantinea. Her speech defines true eros in Plato’s Symposium.442 Diotima’s speech takes such a dominant role in the dialogue that Andrea Nye argues that Diotima was the host of the dinner and not Agathon.443 The speech climaxes with the description of the philosopher as a type of Eros, the daemion who brings unity to life: Ti/nej ou}n, e1fhn e0gw&, w} Dioti/ma, oi9 filosofou~ntej, ei0 mh&te oi9 sofoi mh&te oi9 a)maqei=j; Dh~lon dh&, e1fh, tou~to& ge h1dh kai paidi/, o3ti oi9 metacu_ tou&twn a)mfote/rwn, w{n a2n ei1h kai o( 1Erwj. e1stin ga_r dh_ tw~n kalli/stwn h( sofi/a, 1Erwj d' e0stin e1rwj peri to_ kalo&n, w3ste a)nagkai=on 1Erwta filo&sofon ei]nai, filo&sofon de o1nta metacu_ ei]nai sofou~ kai a)maqou~j. ai0ti/a de au)tw ~ kai tou&twn h( ge/nesij: patro_j men ga_r sofou~ e0sti kai eu)po&rou, mhtro_j de ou) sofh~j kai a)po&rou. h( men ou}n fu&sij tou~ dai/monoj, w} fi/le Sw&kratej, au3th: o4n de su_ w )h&qhj 1Erwta ei]nai, qaumasto_n ou)den e1paqej. w )h&qhj de/, w(j e0moi dokei= tekmairome/nh e0c w{n su_ le/geij, to_ e0rw&menon 1 Erwta ei]nai, ou) to_ e0rw~n: dia_ tau~ta& soi oi]mai pa&gkaloj e0fai/neto o( 1Erwj. kai ga_r e1sti to_ e0rasto_n to_ tw ~ o1nti kalo_n kai a(bro_n kai te/leon kai makaristo&n: to_ de/ ge e0rw~n a1llhn i0de/an toiau&thn e1xon, oi3an e0gw_ dih~lqon. 'But-who then, Diotima,' I said, 'are the lovers of wisdom, if they are neither the wise nor the foolish?' 'A child may answer that question,' she replied; 'they are those who are in a mean between the two; Love is one of them. For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher: or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant. And of this too his birth is the cause; for his father is wealthy and wise, and his mother poor and foolish. Such, my dear Socrates, is the nature of the spirit Love. The error in your conception of him was very natural, and as I imagine from what you say, has arisen out of a confusion of love and the beloved, which made you think that love was all beautiful. For the beloved is the truly beautiful, and delicate, and perfect, and blessed; but the principle of love is of another nature, and is such as I have described.' 444
442
Karen Warren, An Unconventional History of Western Philosophy: Conversations Between Men and Women Philosophers (Plymouth, UK: Rowan & Littlefeld, 2009). 443
Andrea Nye, “The Hidden Host: Irigaray and Diotima at Plato’s Symposium,” Hypatia 3, no. 3, French Feminist Philosophy (1989): 45-61. 444
Pl. Symp. 204b-c (Jowett, LCL).
143 Diotima characterizes Eros as the son of Poverty (mother) and Means (father). Eros, as an ideal philosopher, is ever seeking the perfect balance between these two natures. Luce Igigaray interprets this section of the speech as: He is bare-foot, going out under the stars in search of an encounter with reality, seeking the embrace, the acquaintance [connaissance] (co-birthing) of whatever gentleness of soul, beauty, wisdom might be found there. This incessant quest he inherits from his mother. He is a philosopher through his mother, an adept in invention through his father. But his passion for love, for beauty, for wisdom, comes to him from his mother, and from the date when he was conceived. Desired and wanted, besides, by his mother.445 Like Aspasia, Diotima’s historical essence is deeply embedded in Plato’s rhetoric, so much so that some think that she is entirely fictitious, though most scholars seem to at least assent to some type of historical existence. 446 To these women we should also add Socrates’s wives Xanthippe and Myrto, who had ample opportunity to share in Socrates’s indefatigable curiosities. In Xenophon (430-354 BCE), Socrates engages Theodote in philosophical reflection concerning beauty. 447 There are also nameless women that Socrates mentions: he learns from unnamed priestesses as well as priests (Meno 81a). Socrates appeals to divine revelation concerning the doctrine of the immortality of the soul: Oi9 men le/gonte/j ei0si tw~n i9ere/wn te kai tw~n i9ereiw~n o3soij meme/lhke peri w{n metaxeiri/zontai lo&gon oi3oij t’ ei]nai dido&nai: le/gei de kai Pi/ndaroj kai a1lloi polloi tw~n poihtw~n o3soi qei=oi/ ei0sin. a4 de le/gousin, tauti/ e0stin: a)lla_ sko&pei ei1 soi dokou~sin a)lhqh~ le/gein. fasi ga_r th_n yuxh_n tou~ 445
Luce Irigaray, 'Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato's Symposium, Diotima's Speech,' in Feminist Interpretations of Plato, trans. Eleanor H. Kuykendall, ed. Nancy Tuana (University Press: Pennsylvania, 1994), 185. 446 447
Harry Neumann, “Diotima’s Concept of Love,” AJP 86, no. 1 (1965): 33-4.
Xen. Mem. 3.11.1-15; Debra Nails, The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002).
144 a)nqrw&pou ei]nai a)qa&naton, kai tote men teleuta~n—o4 dh_ a)poqnh &skein kalou~si—tote de pa&lin gi/gnesqai, a)po&llusqai d’ ou)de/pote: dei=n dh_ dia_ tau~ta w(j o(siw&tata diabiw~nai to_n bi/on: o i [ s i n ga_r a2n— Fersefo&na poina_n palaiou~ pe/nqeoj de/cetai, ei0j to_n u3perqen a3lion kei/nwn e0na&tw e1tei” a)ndidoi= yuxa_j pa&lin, e0k ta~n basilh~ej a)gauoi kai sqe/nei kraipnoi sofi/a te me/gistoi a1ndrej au1cont’: e0j de to_n loipo_n xro&non h3rwej a(gnoi pro_j a)nqrw&pwn kaleu~ntai. They were certain priests and who have studied so as to be able to give a reasoned account of their ministry; and Pindar also and many another poet of heavenly gifts. As to their words, they are these: mark now, if you judge them to be true. They say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time comes to an end, which is called dying, and at another is born again, but never perishes. Consequently one ought to live all one’s life in the utmost holiness.”For from whomsoever Persephone shall accept requital for ancient wrong, the souls of these she restores in the ninth year to the upper sun again; from them arise” “glorious kings and men of splendid might and surpassing wisdom, and for all remaining time are they called holy heroes amongst mankind.”448 Diotima participated in the reciprocation of eros in the philosophical circle and in philosophic thought.449 There is no shortage of interpretations of the Symposium, and to interpret the Symposium is to interpret Diotima. Socrates further claims that there are women in Sparta and Crete that are proud of their education and connects them together to the heritage of the famous Delphic maxims: ei0sin de e0n tau&taij tai=j po&lesin ou) mo&non a1ndrej e0pi paideu&sei me/ga fronou~ntej, a)lla_ kai gunai=kej. tou&twn h}n kai Qalh~j o( Milh&sioj kai Pittako_j o( Mutilhnai=oj kai Bi/aj o( Prihneu_j kai So&lwn o( h(me/teroj kai Kleo&bouloj o( Li/ndioj kai Mu&swn o( Xhneu&j, kai e3bdomoj e0n tou&toij e0le/geto Lakedaimo&nioj Xi/lwn. ou{toi pa&ntej zhlwtai kai e0rastai kai maqhtai h}san th~j Lakedaimoni/wn paidei/aj, kai katama&qoi a1n tij au)tw~n th_n sofi/an toiau&thn ou}san, r(h&mata braxe/a a)ciomnhmo&neuta e9ka&stw ei0rhme/na: ou{toi kai koinh ~ sunelqo&ntej a)parxh_n th~j sofi/aj a)ne/qesan tw ~ 0Apo&llwni ei0j to_n 448 449
Pl. Men. 81a-b (Lamb, LCL); Pind. frag. 133.
David M. Halperin, Plato and Erotic Reciprocity,” CA 5, no. 1 (1986): 60-80; Martha C. Nussbaum and Rosalind Hursthouse, “Plato on Commensurability and Desire,” PASSup 58 (1984): 55 -96.
145 new_n to_n e0n Delfoi=j, gra&yantej tau~ta a4 dh_ pa&ntej u(mnou~sin, Gnw~qi sauto&n kai Mhden a1gan. tou~ dh_ e3nekatau~ta le/gw; o3ti ou{toj o( tro&poj h}n tw~n palaiw~n th~j filosofi/aj, braxulogi/a tij Lakwnikh&: kai dh_ kai tou~ Pittakou~ i0di/a periefe/reto tou~to to_ r(h~ma e0gkwmiazo&menon u(po_ tw~ n sofw~n, to_ Xalepo_n e0sqlo/n e1mmenai. In those two states there are not only men but women also who pride themselves on their education… Such men were Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of Mytilene, Bias of Priene, Solon of our city, Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen, and, last of the traditional seven, Chilon of Sparta. All these were enthusiasts, lovers and disciples of the Spartan culture; and you can recognize that character in their wisdom by the short, memorable sayings that fell from each of them they assembled together and dedicated these as the first-fruits of their lore to Apollo in his Delphic temple, inscribing there those maxims which are on every tongue—”Know thyself” and “Nothing overmuch.” To what intent do I say this? To show how the ancient philosophy had this style of laconic brevity; and so it was that the saying of Pittacus was privately handed about with high approbation among the sages—that it is hard to be good.450 Soctrates says here (through Plato) that both Spartan men and women – who did not engage in philosophical discourse – actually did practice philosophy because of the way that they lived their lives. Socrates argues that in their manner of living, the Spartans followed the Delphic maxims “Know thyself” and “Nothing in excess.” According to early tradition, Plato (c. 428-347 BCE) had two female students in spite of his complicated views concerning women.451 Later traditions in the pseudoPythagorean corpus attribute writings to Plato’s mother, Pericitone.
450 451
Pl. Prot. 342d-343b (Lamb, LCL).
For his female students Lasthenia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Phlus, see Diog. Laert. 3.46; Them. Or. 295e; Ath. 7.279, 12.546; cf. P.Oxy. 3656. Dorothy Wender examines the contradictory nature of Plato’s attitudes toward women in, “Plato: Misogynist, Paedophile, and Feminist,” in Women in the Ancient World, ed. John Peradotto and J. P. Sullivan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), 213228; cf., Christine Garside Allen, “Plato on Women,” Feminist Studies 2, no. 2/3 (1975): 131-8. An examination of Plato’s contradictory views concerning women may serve as an analogy for some Pauline contradictions.
146 The Cyrenian School Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BCE), a student of Socrates, founded the Cyrenian school. According to some traditions, his daughter Arete took over as head of the school until her son, Aristippus the Younger (late 4th BCE) took over. Significantly, the tradition of Arete first appears in the first century CE pseudo-Socratic letters, but most likely has earlier sources.452 Interestingly, the letters contain some material that corresponds with Diogenes Laertius (fl. c. 3rd CE), writing about 200 years later than the epistles: 0Aristi/ppou dih&kousen h( quga&thr 0Arh&th kai Ai0qi/oy Ptolemaeu_j kai 0Anti/patroj Kurhnai=oj: 0Arh&thj de 0Ari/stippoj o( mhtrodi/daktoj e0piklhqei/j, ou{ Qeo&dwroj o( a1qeoj, ei]ta qeo&j: 0Antipa&trou d’ 0Epitimi/dhj Kurhnai=oj, ou{ Paraiba&thj, ou{ 9Hghsi/aj o( peisiqa&natoj kai 0Anni/kerij o( Pla&twna lutrwsa&menoj. “Now the pupils of Aristippus were his own daughter Arete, and Aethiops of Ptolemais, and Antipater of Cyrene. Arete had for her pupil the Aristippus who was surnamed mêtrodidantos, whose disciple was Theodorus the atheist, but who was afterwards called theos. Antipater had for a pupil Epitimedes of Cyrene who was the master of Pyraebates, who was the master of Hegesias, who was surnamed peisithanatos (persuading to die), and of Anniceris who ransomed Plato.”453 Similarly, Diogenes writes “He gave admirable advice to his daughter Arete, teaching her to despise superfluidity.”454 Diogenes also knew of a letter from Aristippus to his daughter Arete, but he apparently does not quote from the extant version as an authority for his writings. Strabo (c. 63-24 CE) also writes that Arete was the head of the school, and taught her son Aristippus surnamed mhtrodi/dantoj, who in turn took his mother’s 452
Aristippus to Arete. Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 282-85.
453
Diog. Laert. 2.86 (Hicks, LCL).
454
Diog. Laert. 2.72 (Hicks, LCL). Cf., Aristippus to Arete 27.2 = Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 285.
147 place. 455 Her story is known by Aelius (fl. 1st CE, NA 3.40.1), Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 CE, Strom. 4.19.22), Theodoret of Cyrus456 (393-457 CE, Graecarum affectionum curatio 11.1), Strabo, (63-24 BCE/CE, Geo. 17.3.22.11), Suda (10th CE, 0Ari/stippoj = 3908); Aristocles (fl. 1st CE, frg. v.3 line 16 = Euseb. praep. ev. 14.18.31-2).
The Epicurean Women Norman DeWitt speculated, “If the history of Epicureanism were as well understood as the history of Stoicism, we might discover that there is more of Epicureanism than of Stoicism in the New Testament.”457 There is a long history of a qualified Christian acceptance of Epicureanism, but the first mention of a woman Epicurean philosopher does not appear until Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-217CE).458
455
Clem. Al. Strom. 3.17.22. Malherbe, Cynic Episles, 27. Diog. Laert. 2.72, 83, 86; Eus. PE 19.18. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom. 4.122; Strabo, 27.3. 22; Ael. NA 3.40; Theodoret, Therapeutike, 11.1; Them. Or. 21.244. 456
Niketas Siniossoglou, Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 457
Norman W. DeWitt, “Vergil and Epicureanism,” CW 25, no. 12 (1932): 96. The best resource for source material is Epicurus, Epicurea, ed. Hermannus Usener (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Reprint Library, 1887). Available online at http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/epicurea.html#l14, accessed Feb 6, 2012. 458
Richard Jungkuntz, “Epicureanism and the Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI), 1961; Richard P. Jungkuntz, “Christian Approval of Epicureanism,” American Society of Church History 31, no. 3 (1962). Clement’s affinity for Epicureanism is limited. Highly favoring Platonism, Clement identifies Epicureanism and Stoicism as the schools that Paul rejects in 1 Cor 3:19-20, and it is again rejected by Paul in Acts 15:18 because it “abolishes providence and defies pleasure.” Clement argues that Paul indicated that the Stoics taught that “the Deity, being
148 Clement highly values philosophical education: “Women are therefore to philosophize equally with men, though the males are preferable at everything, unless they have become effeminate.”459 Clement uses Themisto, the student of Epicurus (341-270 BCE), as an example of a woman who studied philosophy, “Themisto too, of Lampsacus, the daughter of Zoilus, the wife of Leontes of Lampsacus, studied the Epicurean philosophy.”460 The Epicurean Garden freely admitted women as well as rich or poor, and these traditions become important to later writers and philosophers.461 Leontion (lioness), the companion of Metrodorus, is known to Cicero (106-43 BCE), Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE), and Athenaeus (fl. 250 CE).462 Athenaeus (fl. 2nd century) writes: ou{toj ou}n o( 0Epi/kouroj ou) Leo&ntion ei]xen e0rwme/nhn th_n e0pi e9tairei/a diabo&hton genome/nhn; h4 de ou)d’ o3te filosofei=n h1rcato e0pau&sato e9tairou~sa, pa~si de toi=j 0Epikourei/oij sunh~n e0n toi=j kh&poij, 0Epikou&rw de
a body, pervades the vilest matter. He calls the jugglery of logic the ‘tradition of men,’” Strom. 1.11 (Roberts-Donaldson, ANF). 459
Strom. 4.7 (Roberts-Donaldson, ANF).
460
Strom. 4.19.1332a (Roberts-Donaldson, ANF).
461
DeWitt, “Epicurean Contubernium,” 57. DeWitt notes that this resembles early Christian communities. Cf., Jane McIntosh Snyder, The Woman and the Lyre: Woman Writers in Classical Greece and Rome (Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989), 101-5; T. Brennan, “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children,” C Phil 91.4 (1996) 346-352. 462
Cic. ND 1.33, 93; Pliny, HN 29, 35.99; Ath. 13.588, 593; cf., Diog. Laert. 10.5, 23; Cf., Laura McClure has a study on the cultivated hetaera “Subversive Laughter: The Sayings of Courtesans in Book 13 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae,” AJP 124, no. 2 (2003): 259-94. See also Seneca’s description early Epicureanism in Ep. 20.9; cf., 6.6; 52.3.
149 kai a)nafando&n: w3st’ e0kei=non pollh_n fronti/da poiou&menon au)th~j tou~t’ e0mfani/zein dia_ tw~n pro_j 3Ermarxon 0Epistolw~n (frag. 121 Usner). Now, had not this very Epicurus Leontium463 for his mistress, her, I mean, who was so celebrated as a courtesan? But she did not cease to live as a prostitute when she began to learn philosophy, but still prostituted herself to the whole sect of Epicureans in the gardens, and to Epicurus himself, in the most open manner; so that this great philosopher was exceedingly fond of her, though he mentions this fact in his letters to Hermarchus.464 There is a traditional list of other women in the Epicurean Garden: Mammarion, Hedeia, Erotion, and Nikidion, and Boidion.465 Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) is critical of Epicurus at every mention of the Epicurean women, including individual references to Leontion (Mor. 1129b) and Hedia (Mor. 1089c), using their reputation as prostitutes to rhetorically attack the character of Epicureans. A fragment of Philodemus (c.110-40 BCE) simply says that what Epicurus learned from Leontion might be ascribed to Colotes (9.3).466
463
In Athenaeus’s time, there may have been a collection of letters entitled “Letters to Hemarchus.” Athenaeus says of Leontium, “and even before the very eyes of Epicurus; wherefore he, poor devil, was really worried about her, as he makes clear in his Letters to Hermarchus,” 13.522b. The only extant letter from Epicurus to Hermarchus is preserved in Cic. Fin. 2.30.96 and it does not mention Leontium. 464
Ath. 13.53 (Yonge, LCL).
465
Diog. Laert. 10.7; Plut. Mor. 1097E; 1089c, 1098b; Plin. Ep. 35; 35.144. J. Adam argued that the earliest Epicurean women were ‘facile with the pen,’ “Epicurus and Erotion,” CR 7, no. 7 (1893): 303-4. Cic. Fin. 1.25; Erotium the Courtesan appears as a minor character in Plautus’s Menaechmi, Z. M. Packman, “Feminine Role Designations in the Comedies of Plautus,” AJP 120, no. 2 (1999): 245-58; cf., Elaine Fantham, “Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women in New Comedy,” Phoenix 29, no. 1 (1975): 44-74; Laura McClure, Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus (New York: Routledge, 2003). 466
Text and translation from Diskin Clay and David Konstan, et al, Philodemus: On Frank Criticism, Texts and Translations Greco-Roman Series, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, vol. 43, no. 13 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 32-3.
150 kaq]olou [d 0 a9marthma/twn e0kei/nwn t[a]/d[e] kai a3pe[r o9] 0Epi/kouroj Leonti/ou punqa/[n]etai pr[osu]posth/setai proj Kolw/thn. e0pei kai meta/c pot 0 e0f 0 e9auton o9 sofo/j q 0 a9marthm· a1neton e0n t[h=i] neo/thti ge[g]o[n]enai .. in general such and such of their (sc. the students’) errors and what Epicurus learns from Leontium he will {hypothetically} ascribe to Colotes. Since the wise man will also sometimes transfer to himself an intemperate error, {saying} that it occurred in his youth..467 Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) says that Epicurus wrote many letters to Leontion, and she wrote back (10.5-7). This tradition continues in Alciphron468 (between 170 and 350 CE): oi[a& me 0Epi/kouroj ou{toj dioikei= pa&nta loidorw~n, pa&nta u(popteu&wn, e0pistola_j a)dialu&touj moi gra&fwn, e0kdiw&kwn e0k tou~ kh&pou. ma_ th_n 0Afrodi/thn, ei0 1Adwnij h}n, h1dh e0ggu_j o)gdoh&konta gegonw_j e1th, ou)k a2n au)tou~ h)nesxo&mhn fqeiriw~ntoj kai filonosou~ntoj kai katapepilhme/nou eu} ma&la po&koij a)nti pi/lwn. me/xri ti/noj u(pomenei= tij to_n filo&sofon tou~ton; e0xe/tw ta_j peri fu&sewj au)tou~ kuri/aj do&caj kai tou_j diestramme/nouj kano&naj, e0me de a)fe/tw th_n fusikw~j kuri/an e0mauth~j a)stoma&xhton kai a)nu&briston. How strangely this Epicurus treats me, always finding fault, suspicious of everything, sending me letters that I cannot make out, even threatening to drive me out of his garden. By Venus! if he were an Adonis eighty years old, I could not endure him, full of vermin as he is, and always unwell, wrapped up in garments of raw wool instead of felt. How long can anyone endure a man like this philosopher? Let him stick to his doctrines about nature, and his perverted canons, but let him allow me to enjoy my natural freedom without his insults or annoyance.469 Leontion is then the most famous Epicurean woman (followed closely by Themista) as we see in the references to her in Philodemus (c. 110-40 BCE) and
467
Philodemus, On Frank Criticism, vol. Herc. 1, v. 2, frag. 9.
468
Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus: The Letters, trans. and ed. Allen R. Benner and Francis H. Fobes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949). 469
Alciphr. Ep. 17.5 (Benner and Fobes, LCL). In this epistle, Leontium depicted writing to Lamia.
151 Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE).470 Some traditions indicate that Leontion had a philosophically educated daughter Danaë, who was executed for attempting to thwart the murder of Sophron the governor of Ephesus by Laodice. In this context, Athenaeus preserves a teaching from Danaë concerning the Divine, a common topic in Epicureanism: Dana&hn de th_n Leonti/ou th~j 0Epikourei/ou qugate/ra e9tairizome/nhn kai au)th_n Sw&frwn ei]xen o( e0pi th~j 0Efe/sou: di’ h4n au)to_j men e0sw&qh e0pibouleuo&menoj u(po_ Laodi/khj, h4 de katekrhmni/sqh, w(j gra&fei Fu&larxoj dia_ th~j dwdeka&thj (ta&de: ‘h( pa&redroj th~j Laodi/khj Dana&h, pisteuome/nh u(p’ au)th~j ta_ pa&nta, Leonti/ou d’ ou}sa th~j met’ 0Epikou&rou tou~ fusikou~ sxolasa&shj quga&thr, Sw&fronoj de gegonui=a pro&teron e0rwme/nh, parakolouqou~sa dio&ti a)poktei=nai bou&letai to_n Sw&frona h( Laodi/kh dianeu&ei tw ~ Sw&froni, mhnu&ousa th_n e0piboulh&n. o4 de sullabw_n kai prospoihqeij sugxwrei=n peri w{n le/gei du&’ h(me/raj parh th&sato ei0j ske/yin: kai sugxwrhsa&shj nukto_j e1fugen ei0j 1Efeson. maqou~sa de h( Laodi/kh to_ poihqen u(po_ th~j Dana&hj katekrh&mnisen th_n a1nqrwpon, ou)den tw~n progegenhme/nwn filanqrw&pwn e0pi nou~n balome/nh. Well, did not this same Epicurus keep Leontium as his mistress, the woman who had become notorious as a courtesan? Why! Even when she began to be a philosopher, she did not cease her courtesan ways, but consorted with all the Epicureans in the Gardens, and even before the very eyes of Epicurus; wherefore he, poor devil, was really worried about her, as he makes clear in his Letters to Hermarchus… and they say that Danae, when she perceived the danger which was impending over her, was interrogated by Laodice, and refused to give her any answer; but, when she was dragged to the precipice, then she said, that “many people justly despise the Deity, and they may justify themselves by my case, who having saved a man who was to me as my husband, am requited in this manner by the Deity. But Laodice, who murdered her husband, is thought worthy of such honour.” 471 As can be seen from Athenaeus’s criticism of Leontium in the quote above, many of the women in the school were considered courtesans (hetaerae) and the school endured a 470
Seneca, On Marriage, frag. 45 (= Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1.48); cf., Clement of Alexandria, Proof of the Gospels, 2.23; Theodoretus, Remedies for the Errors of the Greeks [p. 479 Gaisf.]. 471
Ath. 13.64 (Yonge, LCL).
152 good deal of heckling from polemicists. The Stoic Diotimus, for example, supposedly published fifty letters by Epicurus and his mistresses.472 Cicero (106-43 CE, Nat. D. 1.93) rebuked Leontion for her work against Theophrastus.473 Pliny (61-112 CE) tells us that Aristides of Thebes painted a portrait of her listing, “Leontium, the mistress of Epicurus, in an attitude of meditation.”474 The sister of Metrodorus,475 Batis wife of Idomeneus,476 was a first generation Epicurean and wrote a letter to her niece Apia, and other letter fragments survive as well. 477 Batis of Lampscus was known to Seneca (c. 465 CE),478 “For this very reason I regard as excellent the saying of Metrodorus, in a letter of consolation to his sister on the loss of her son, a lad of great promise: ‘All the Good of
472
Diog. Laert. 10.3.
473
Cicero merely says that while she wrote in excellent Attic, the substance of her work is ridiculous. Pliny the Elder (Praefatio 29) indicates simply that a woman wrote against Theophrastus even though he was a respected rhetor. 474
Plin. HN 35.99, “…et leontion epicure et anapauomenen propter fratis amorem…” 475
Strab. 13; Cic. Nat. D. 1.40, Tusc. 5.9; Fin. 2.28, 92; Plut. Mor. 1087a, 1094d; 1117b; Diog. Laert. 10.22; Ath. 12. 476
Vogliano frag. 23 = Usener frag. 176. Alternative translations in Klauck, Ancient Letters, 154 and Cyril Baily, Epicurus: The Extant Remains (Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press, 1926), 129. 477
Marcello Gigante, Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum, trans. Dirk Obbink (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995); David Sider, The Library of the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005). 478
Diog. Laert. 10.23.
153 mortals is mortal.’”479 Cleomedes (between 1st-4th CE) remembers Leontion along with Philainis as he criticizes Epicurus for having failed in philosophy. 480 Epicurus (341-270 BCE) and his followers endured harsh criticism from other schools for admitting women, and this polemic continued throughout the Hellenistic period. Lactanius (c. 240-320 CE) only remembers Themista: Denique nullas unquam mulieres philosophari docuerunt, praeter unam ex omni memoria Themisten. Finally, they never taught any women to be philosophers except one, from all memory: Themista. 481 Themista is also remembered in P. Herc. 176, which is considered to be an authentic epistle authored by an early Epicurean.482 The following is addressed to a child, referencing their “mommy” (m[a&]mmh [s]ou)). [a0 fei/gmeqa ei0j La&myakon u(giai/non(te?)j e0gw_ kai Puqoklh~j kai 3Ermarxoj kai Kth&sippoj kai e0kei= kateilh&famen u0giai/nontaj Qemi/stan kai tou_j loipou_j fi/louj: eu} de poiei=j kai ei0? su_ u(giai/neij kai h( m[a&]mmh [s]ou kai pa&pai kai Ma&trwni pa&nta pei/qh [w3?sp]er kai e1mprosqen: Pythocles, Hermarchus and I have reached Lampascus safe and sound. We found Themista and the rest of our friends there in good health. I hope you are well too, 479
Sen. Ep. 98.9 (Gummere, LCL).
480
Cleom. 2.1.
481
Lactant. Div. inst. 3.25.4.
482
J. M. Rist, Epicurus, an Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), 12.
154 and your mummy, and that you are obedient to them in all things. 483 Epicureanism gained some influence in Lycia. In the second century CE, Diogenes of Oenoanda erected a huge monument there with inscriptions of Epicurean philosophy. It is currently preserved in 224 fragments. Some fragments were discovered that are part of a Letter to Mother.484 C. W. Chilton renewed interest in Diogenes of Oenoanda with a germinal article in 1963, inspiring Martin Ferguson Smith to search for more fragments at the original site. 485 Smith produced several articles and books as the fragments were discovered and edited, and repeatedly argues that the Letter to Mother is written by Epicurus rather than Diogenes. 486 Smith writes, “To sum up: the Letter to
483
Rist, Epicurus, 12; for text see A. Vogliano, Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in Herculanensibus papyris servata (Berolini : Apud Weidmannos, 1928): 23–55; A. Angeli, “La scuola epicurea di Lampsaco nel PHerc. 176 (fr. 5 coll. I, IV, VIII–XXIII),” CErc 18 (1988): 27–51. 484
Chilton frag. 52-3.
485
C. W. Chilton, “The Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” AJA 67 (1963): 285-6. See also the monographs by Pamela Gordon, Epicurus in Lycia: The SecondCentury World of Diogenes of Oenoanda (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996); and C. W. Chilton, Diogenes of Oenoanda; A. S. Hall, examines the possibilities of which Diogenes in Oenoanda is the Epicurean in “Who Was Diogenes of Oenoanda?,” JHS 99 (1979): 160-3. 486
Martin Ferguson Smith, “Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda Discovered and Rediscovered,” AJA 74, no. 1 (1971): 51-62; “New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” AJA 75, no. 4 (1971): 357-389; “Fifty-Five New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” AnSt 28 (1978): 39-92; “Two New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” JHS 92 (1972), 147-55; “New Readings in the Text of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” CQ n.s. 22, no. 1 (1972): 159-162; “Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 24,” AJP 99, no. 3 (1978): 329-331; “Eight New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” AnSt 29, (1979): 6989; “Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragments 122-124,” AnSt 34 (1984): 43-57; “New Readings in the Demostheneia Inscription from Oinoanda,” AnSt 44 (1994): 59-64; “Excavations at Oinoanda 1997: The New Epicurean Texts,” AnSt 48 (1998): 125-170; “ΝΗΣΣΟΣ at Oinoanda in Lycia: Misspelling or Genuine Variant,” ZPE 130 (2000): 127130; “Fresh Thoughts on Diogenes of Oinoanda fr. 68,” ZPE 133, (2000): 51-55; “The Introduction to Diogenes of Oinoanda’s ‘Physics,’” CQ n.s. 50, no. 1 (2000): 238-246;
155 Mother is almost certainly addressed to Epicurus’s mother; it is possible that it is either a genuine letter, or an adaptation of a genuine letter, of Epicurus.”487 Chilton suggests that ‘the author is emphasizing the necessity of pursuing philosophy in order to dispel fear (of death and/or the gods?) and attain perfect happiness.”488 The exhortation for women to utilize Epicurean philosophy is clear in the Letter to Mother in the Diogenes inscription, which will be presented in total: [--- dei= se pe]ri au0tw=n [a0kreibh = te kai] pisthn [ske/yin poiei=sq]ai. ai9 men [gar fantasi/ai] tw=n a0po/n[twn a0po th=j o1y]ewj e0pi[ou=sai th= yuxh= ] ton me/[giston ta/raxo]n pare/[xousin. a2n de to o3]lon [pra=gma a0kreibw=]j diaqe[a=, maqh/sei o3ti a0n]tikruj ei0si toiau=tai kai mh paro/ntwn oi{ai kai paro/ntwn. a9ptai gar ou0k ou[sai, dianohtai de/, thn au0th/n, o$son ef 0 e9auta[i]=hj, e1xousi du/naming proj touj paro/ntaj th=? o3te kai paro/ntwn e0kei/nwn u9feisth/kesan. proj ou]n tau=ta, w] mh=ter, [qa/rrei· m]h gar e0pil[ogi/sh? t]a fa/zmata h9m[w=n kaka/]. ti/qei d 0 au0t[a o9rw=sa] kaq 0 h9me/ra[n agaq]o/n ti h9ma=j p[rosk]twme/rw ei0j [to makr]ote/rw th=j e[u0daim]‹o›ni/aj probai/n[ein. o]u0 gar meikra ou0de[/n t 0 a0nu/]tonta perigei/netai h[9m]ei=n ta/d 0 oi[a thn dia/qesin h9mw=n i0so/qeon poiei= kai makari/aj fusewj leipome/nouj h9maj dei/knusin. o3te men gar zw=men, o9moi/wj toi=j qeoi=j xai/romen. (to cause the greatest concern about them. For the appearance of those who are absent, independent from sight, instills very great fear, whereas if they are present with us it causes not the least of dread. But if you carefully examine their nature the appearances) of the absent are exactly the same as those of the present. For being not tangible but intelligible they have in themselves the same capacity towards those present when they arose, their subjects being present also. Therefore, Mother, take heart; you must not regard visions of me as evil. Rather consider that I am daily aquiring useful help towards advancing happiness. Not slight or of no avail are the advantages that accrue to me, such that they make my condition equal “Elementary, My Dear Lycians: A Pronouncement on Physics from Diogenes of Oinoanda,” AnSt 50 (2000): 133-137; “In Praise of the Simple Life: A New Fragment of Diogenes of Oinoanda,” AnSt 54 (2004): 35-46. 487
Smith, “Discovered and Rediscovered,” 60 n. 60; Smith, Diongenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription, La Scula di Epicuro, Suppl. 1 (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1993), 558. 488
Chilton, Diogenes, 130.
156 to the divine and show that not even mortality can make me inferior to the indestructible and blessed nature. For as long as I live I rejoice even as do the gods…489 [e1kastoj gar sterhqeij tw=n a0gaqw=n luph/n lu][p]h/s[eta]i thn i1sh[n, a1n] [g ]0 a0ntila/bhtai th=j e0lattw/sewj· a1n mh ai0sqa/nhtai de/, pw=j e0lattou=tai; meta dh toiou/twn h9ma=j a0gaqw=n prosdo/ka, mh=ter, xai/rontaj ai0ei kai e1paire seauthn e0f 0 oi[j pra/ttomen. twn m[en]toi xorhgiw=n fei/dou, proj Dio/j, w[n sunexw=j h9mei=n a0poste/lleij. ou0 gar soi/ ti Bou/lomai lei/pein, i3n 0 e0moi periteu/h?, lei/pein d 0 ma=llon, i3na mh soi/, kai/toi ge a0fqo/nwj ka0mou= dia/g[on]toj e0n pa=sin, dia t[ouj] fi/louj kai to sunexw=[j] ton pate/ra h9mei=n pe/mpein a0rgu/rion, prosfa/twj de dh kai dia tou= Kle/wnoj taj e0nne/a hma=j a0pestalko/toj. ou1koun e9ka/teron u9mw=n i0di/a? dei= Barei=sqai di 0 h9ma=j, sunxrh=sqai de tw=? e9te/rw? ton [e3teron] . … the same, if he suffers diminution; but if he has no sensation, how is he diminished? Surrounded by such good things, then, think of me, mother, as rejoicing always and have confidence in how I am faring. But in heaven’s name be sparing with the remittances you are constantly sending me. I do not wish you to be in need so that I may have abundance, I would rather suffer need so that you should not,; and yet I am living in plenty in every respect thanks to friends and father continually sending me money; indeed only recently Cleon sent me nine minae. So neither one nor other of you should worry about me but enjoy each other’s company. 490 There is general consensus that the fragments that comprise Letter to Mother are either authentic Epicurus or from a first generation Epicurean.491 The first fragment of the Letter to Mother (frag. 124) centers on the Epicurean teachings concerning dreams.492 The author comforts his mother who has visions or dreams of her son, and tells her that
489
Frag. Ch 52 = Smith frag. 125
490
Frag. Ch 53 = Smith frag. 126.
491
Smith, The Epicurean Inscription, 555-8.
492
Diskin Clay, “An Epicurean Interpretation of Dreams,” AJPhil 101, no. 3 (1980): 352-5.
157 these apparations are a good thing.493 Pamela Gordon argues that the Letter to Mother (frag. 125) is fictional and fits with a common genre of philosophical writing that Gordon calls “philosopher’s demurrals,” also found in the Cynic epistles. In Letter to Mother, Epicurus tells his mother not to send him anything, and in the Cynic Epistles, Crates often requests that the addressee – including his wife Hipparchia – to withhold gifts.494 Besides Diogenes of Oenoanda, other Roman Epicureans include Amafinius (late 2nd or early 1st BCE, Cic., Acad. 1.2.5),495 Rabirius (1st BCE, Cic., Acad. 1.2.5), Catius,496 Pompilius Andronicus (fl. 1st CE; Ath. 12.68) Titus Albucius (fl. mid 2nd BCE);497 Gaius Velleius (d. 41 BCE = Vell. Pat. 2.26.1, grandfather of the senator Gaius Cassius Paterculus (Cic. Nat. D. 1.6.15), Longinus (before 85-42BCE; Cic. Fam. 15.16, 19; Plut., Brut. 37.2, 39.6); Demetrius the Laconian (2nd CE; Diog. Laert. 10.26; Strabo 14.2.20; Sext. Emp., Math., 10.219-27).498 The Epicurean Titus Pomponius Atticus (c. 11232BCE), a friend of Cicero, gave his daughter Pomponia Caecilia Attica an excellent liberal education which included philosophical training.499 Attica’s education included
493
Epic. Hdt. 49-52; Lucr. 4.29; 722-822, 962-1036; frag. 9-10, 43. Cf., Plut. Mor. 1091. 494
Gordon, Epicurus in Lycia, 66-93; cf., Gordon, “Remembering the Garden,”
495
Cic. Fam. 15.19.2; Acad. Post. 1.5; cf., Tusc. 1.6, 2.7, 6.7.
76.
496
Insubrian Gaul from Ticinum (Pavia). Cic. Fam. 15.16; Qunt. Inst. 10.1.24; Pliny Ep. 4.28. 497 498
Cic. Brut. 35.131; Fin. 1.3, 8; Orat. 3.
Catherine J. Castner, “Difficulties in Identifying Roman Epicureans: Orata in Cicero De Fin. 2.22.70,” CJ 81, no. 2 (1986): 138-147
158 elementary training by a slave paedagogus (Att. 12.33) and the freedman grammaticus Q. Caecilius Epirota500 for advanced grammar. Similarly, Pliny the Younger’s (61-112 CE) friend Marcellinus retained a paedagogus and a praeceptores for the education of his daughter (Ep. 5.16). While the early rules of the Garden provided many opportunities for women to learn philosophy, the encouragement to practice philosophy in the household is a guide for later Epicureans: Gela~n a3ma dei= kai filosofei=n kai oi0konomei=n kai toi=j loipoi=j oi0keiw&masi xrh~sqai kai mhdamh ~ lh&gein ta_j e0k th~j o)rqh~j filosofi/aj fwna_j a)fie/ntaj. All at the same time we must laugh and practice our philosophy, applying it in our own households, taking advantage of our other intimacies to this end, and under no circumstances whatever falter in making our utterances consistent with the true philosophy.501 The Cynic: Crates and Hipparchia Hipparchia of Maroneia (c. 300 BCE), the wife of Crates, the famous student of Diogenes the Cynic (412-323 BCE)502 is remembered in the following epigram (dated in as early 3rd BCE and as late as 1st BCE): Ou0xi baqusto/lmwn 9Ipparxi/a e1rga gunaikw=n , tw=n de Kunw=n e9lo/man r9wmale/on bi/oton· ou0de/ moi a0mpexo/nai peronh/tidej, ou0 baqu/pelmoj 499
Meyer Reinhold, “Marcus Agrippa’s Son-in-Law P. Quinctilius Varus,” C Phil 67, no. 2 (1972): 119-121; Elizabeth Rawson, Cicero: A Portrait (London: Allen Lane, 1975), 197; E. F. Leon, “Note on Caecilia Attica,” CB, 38 (1962), 35-36; R. Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 143, 314; Anthony Everitt, Cicero: A Turbulent Life (London: John Murray, 2001). 500
Cic. Att. 12.1, 6, 13, 33; 13.14, 19, 21, 52; 14.16.11; Kenneth Quinn, “The Poet and his Audience in the Augustan Age,” ANRW 2.30.1: 110-12. 501
Vatican Sayings, 41. Translation by Norman W. DeWitt, “Epicurean Contubernium,” TAPA 67 (1936): 59. 502
Born c404-323 BCE who lived in Corinth near the end of his life.
159 eu0mari/j, ou0 lipo/wn eu1ade kekru/faloj· ou0laj de skipwni sune/mporoj, a3 te sunw?doj a1mmi de Mainali/aj ka/rrwn a1min 0Atala/ntaj to/sson, o3son sofi/a kre/sson o0ridromi/aj. I, Hipparchia, chose not the tasks of amply-robed woman, but the manly life of the Cynics. Nor do tunics fastened with brooches and thick-soled slippers, and the haircaul wet with ointment please me, but rather the wallet and its fellow-traveler the staff and the course double mantle suited to them, and a bed strewn on the ground. I shall have a greater name than that of Archadian Atlanta by so much as wisdom is better than racing over the mountain. 503 This indicates that Hipparchia has to join the world of men in order to participate in philosophy. Most traditions remember Hipparchia as no longer effeminate, but masculine, and expresses her sexuality in masculine terms: she dresses and speaks like a male Cynic, and there is no more need for her to be modest, chaste, or quiet in public. Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) mentions her as one of the many philosophers that Epicurus slanders in Mor. 1086e.504 kai o( Qe/wn eit’ ou)k e1legej e0i]pen o3ti toi=j e0kei/nwn o( Kwlw&thj paraballo&menoj eu)fhmo&tatoj a)ndrw~n fai/netai; ta_ ga_r e0n a)nqrw&poij ai1sxista r(h&mata, bwmoloxi/ajlhkuqismou_j a)lazonei/aj e9tairh&seij a)ndrofoni/aj, barusto&nouj polufqo&rouj baruegkefa&louj sunagago&ntej 0Aristote/louj kai Swkra&touj kai Puqago&rou kai Prwtago&rou kai Qeofra&stou kai 9Hraklei/dou kai 9Ipparxi/aj kai ti/noj ga_r ou)xi tw~n e0pifanw~n kateske/dasan 503
Anth. Pal. 7.413.1 (Capps et al, LCL). Lefkowitz and Fant, [page] 168, date this epigram in 3rd century BCE, and offer an alternative translation: “I, Hipparchia, have no use for the works of deep-robed women; I have chosen the Cynics’ virile life. I don’t need capes with brooches or deep-soled slippers; I don’t like glossy nets for my hair. My wallet is my staff’s traveling companion, and the double cloak that goes with them, the cover for my bed on the ground. I’m much stronger than Atlanta from Maenalus, because my wisdom is better than racing over the mountain.” This epigram is dated 1 st2nd BCE. See also D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century (London: Methuen, 1937). 504
See “The Polemic of Plutarch,” in The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, trans. and ed. Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994), 68-74.
160 Here Theon put in: “And you didn’t reply that by their standard Colotes looks like a paragon of measured speech? For they made a collection of the most disgraceful terms to be found anywhere – ‘buffoonery,’ ‘hollow booming,’ ‘charlatanism,’ ‘prostitution,’ ‘assassin,’ ‘groaner,’ ‘hero of many an adventure,’ ‘nincompoop,’ – and show erred it on Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, Protagoras, Theophrastus, Heraclides, Hipparchia – indeed what eminent name have they spared?505 Sextus Empiricus (c. 160-210 CE) tells us that Hipparchia and Diogenes had sexual intercourse in public, “a0gwgh?= de e1qoj a0vtiti/qetai, o2tan oi9 men polloi a1nqrwpoi a0naxwrou=ntej mignu/wntai tai=j e9autw=n gunaici/n, o9 de Kra/tej th?= 9Ipparxi/a? dhmosi/a?, kai/ o9 men Dioge/nhj a0po e0cwmi/doj perih/?ei, h9mei=j de w9j ei0w/qamen,” “And habit is opposed to rule of conduct when, whereas most men have intercourse with their own wives in retirement, Crates did it in public with Hipparchia; and Diogenes went about with one shoulder bare, whereas we dress in the customary manner.”506 The Stoic Epictetus (55-135 CE)507 whose teacher Musonius Rufus (c. 25-100 CE)508 believed that women should be philosophically educated, used her as an example for the Cynic lifestyle. Epictetus writes:
505
Plut. Mor. 1086e
506
Sext. Emp. Pyr. 153.3 (Bury, LCL). Cf., Theod. Theol. et Scr. Eccl. and Graecarum affectionum curatio. B. L. Hijmans, Ἄσκησις, Notes on Epictetus’ Educational System (Assen: van Gorcum, 1959); P. A. Brunt, “Stoicism and the Principate,” PBSR 43, (1975): 7-35; G. Roskam, On the Path to Virtue. The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and Its Reception in (Middle-)Platonism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005); Mary T. Boatwright, “The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century A.C.,” AJP 112, no. 4 (1991): 513540. 507
508
Martha C. Nussbaum, “The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus,” in The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002): 283-326; David M. Engel, “Women’s Role in the Home and the State: Stoic Theory Reconsidered,” HSCP 101 (2003): 267-288.
161 sko&pei, pou~ kata&gomen to_n Kuniko&n, pw~j au)tou~ th_n basilei/an a)fairou&meqa. Nai/: a)lla_ Kra&thj e1ghmen. Peri/stasi/n moi le/geij e0c e1rwtoj genome/nhn kai gunai=ka tiqei=j a1llon Kra&thta. h(mei=j de peri tw~n koinw~n ga&mwn kai a)perista&twn zhtou~men kai ou3twj zhtou~ntej ou)x eu(ri/skomen tau&th th ~ katasta&sei prohgou&menon tw ~ Kunikw ~ to_ pra~gma. Consider what we are bringing the Cynic down to, how we are taking his royalty from him.—Yes, but Crates took a wife.—You are speaking of a circumstance which arose from love and of a woman who was another Crates. But we are inquiring about ordinary marriages and those which are free from distractions, and making this inquiry we do not find the affair of marriage in this state of the world a thing which is especially suited to the Cynic.509 Epictetus provides the one exception to the Cynic opposition to marriage: if both partners in the marriage are Cynic philosophers, then it is possible for both philosophers to still embrace the Cynic lifestyle. And according to the tradition, Hipparchia did embrace the Cynic philosophy and its extreme disconnect from society. The Cynic marriage between Hipparchia and Crates could happen only because they had both achieved the Cynic ideal. In his Commentary on Epictetus, Simplicius (6th CE) simply writes, “0Alla_ kai peri oi1kouj ou3twj e1xein xrh&. Kra&thti men o( pi/qoj h1rkesen ei0j oi1khsin, kai gameth_n e1xonti th_n kalh_n 9Ipparxi/an,” “Crates was satisfied with a tub for his housing, even though he had a wife, the lovely Hipparchia.”510 According to Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE, who seems more or less reliable in this case),511 Hipparchia fell in love with Crates and his way of life and married him against her parent’s wishes, and 509
Epict. Disc. 3.22.76.
510
Simpl., Commentarius in Epicteti enchiridion, 116.6. Translation in Simplicius, On Epictetus’ “Handbook 27-33,” trans. Tad Brennan and Charles Brittain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002). 511
On the unreliability of Diogenes Laertius, see Richard Hope, The Book of Diogenes Laertius: Its Spirit and Method (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930).
162 Crates married her reluctantly. She attended dinner-parties with him and participated in philosophical debate with their colleagues. Hipparchia is the only philosophically educated woman who received a chapter in Diogenes Laertius (6.7). Diogenes says that Hipparchia was the sister of the Cynic Metrodorus. Both her family and Crates did not want a marriage, but she persisted until finally: Kai h1ra tou~ Kra&thtoj kai tw~n lo&gwn kai tou~ bi/ou, ou)deno_j tw~n mnhsteuome/nwn e0pistrefome/nh, ou) plou&tou, ou)k eu)genei/aj, ou) ka&llouj: a)lla_ pa&nt’ h}n Kra&thj au)th ~. kai dh_ kai h)pei/lei toi=j goneu~sin a)nairh&sein au(th&n, ei0 mh_ tou&tw doqei/h. Kra&thj men ou}n parakalou&menoj u(po_ tw~n gone/wn au)th~j a)potre/yai th_n pai=da, pa&nt’ e0poi/ei, kai te/loj mh_ pei/qwn, a)nasta_j kai a)poqe/menoj th_n e9autou~ skeuh_n a)ntikru_ au)th~j e1fh, “o( men numfi/oj ou{toj, h( de kth~sij au3th, pro_j tau~ta bouleu&ou: ou)de ga_r e1sesqai koinwno&j, ei0 mh_ kai tw~n au)tw~n e0pithdeuma&twn genhqei/hj.” Ei3leto h( pai=j kai tau)to_n a)nalabou~sa sxh~ma sumperih &ei ta)ndri kai e0n tw ~ fanerw ~ sunegi/neto kai e0pi ta_ dei=pna a)ph &ei. Crates accordingly, being entreated by her parents to dissuade her from this resolution, did all he could; and at last, as he could not persuade her, he rose up, and placing all his furniture before her, he said, “This is the bridegroom whom you are choosing, and this is the whole of his property; consider these facts, for it will not be possible for you to become his partner, if you do not also apply your self to the same studies, and conform to the same habits that he does.” But the girl chose him; and assuming the same dress that he wore, went about with him as her husband, and appeared with him in public everywhere, and went to all entertainments in his company.512 Diogenes says that after their marriage, Hipparchia wore the clothing of a male Cynic accompanying Diogenes wherever he went, and participated in philosophic dialog. Interestingly, Diogenes Laertius knew of extant letters to and from Hipparchia, Crates,
512
Diog. Laert. 6.96.
163 and other Cynics. 513 From Diogenes (fl. 3rd CE), one teaching from Hipparchia is preserved in its context: o3te kai pro_j Lusi/maxon ei0j to_ sumpo&sion h}lqen, e1nqa Qeo&dwron to_n e0pi/klhn 1Aqeon e0ph&legce, so&fisma protei/nasa toiou~ton: o4 poiw~n Qeo&dwroj ou)k a2n a)dikei=n le/goito, ou)d’ 9Ipparxi/a poiou~sa tou~to a)dikei=n le/goit’ a1n: Qeo&dwroj de tu&ptwn e9auto_n ou)k a)dikei=, ou)d’ a1ra 9Ipparxi/a Qeo&dwron tu&ptousa a)dikei=. o( de pro_j men to_ lexqen ou)den a)ph&nthsen, a)ne/sure d’ au)th~j qoi0ma&tion: a)ll’ ou1te katepla&gh 9Ipparxi/a ou1te dietara&xqh w(j gunh&. a)lla_ kai ei0po&ntoj au)th ~, au3th e0stin h( ta_j par’ i9stoi=j e0klipou~sa kerki/daj; e0gw&, fhsi/n, ei0mi/, Qeo&dwre: a)lla_ mh_ kakw~j soi dokw~ bebouleu~sqai peri au(th~j, ei0, to_n xro&non o4n e1mellon i9stoi=j prosanalw&sein, tou~ton ei0j paidei/an katexrhsa&mhn; kai tau~ta men kai a1lla muri/a th~j filoso&fou. And once when she went to sup with [king] Lysimachus, she attacked Theodorus, who was surnamed the Atheist; proposing to him the following sophism; “What Theodorus could not be called wrong for doing, that same thing Hipparchia ought not to be called wrong for doing. But Theodorus does no wrong when he beats himself; therefore Hipparchia does no wrong when she beats Theodorus.” He made no reply to what she said, but only pulled her clothes about; but Hipparchia was neither offended nor ashamed, as many a woman would have been; but when he said to her : “Who is the woman who has left the shuttle So near the warp?” “I, Theodorus, am that person,” she replied; “but do I appear to you to have come to a wrong decision, if I devote that time to philosophy, which I otherwise should have spent at the loom?” And these and many other sayings are reported of this female philosopher.514
513
Cf., Kristen Kennedy, “Hipparchia the Cynic: Feminist Rhetoric and the Ethics of Embodiment,” Hypatia 14, no. 2 (1999): 48-71; F. Gerald Downing, “A Cynical Response to the Subjection of Women,” Philosophy 69, no. 268 (1994): 229-230; Rachel Finnegan, “The Professional Careers: Women Pioneers and the Male Image Seduction,” CI 2 (1995): 67-81. The notion that women wear the same dress as men may be an equalizing factor, H. C. Baldry, “Zeno’s Ideal State,” JHS 79 (1959), 10; Joan Burton, “Women’s Commensality in the Ancient Greek World,” G&R, 2nd ser. 45, no. 2 (1998): 143-16. 514
Diog. Laert. 6.98 (Hicks, LCL).
164 It is interesting that in this text, Theodorus the Atheist is silent. Hipparchia, in true Cynic form, sharply rebuked Theodorus without provocation. Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) refers to two reliable sources for Hipparchia: Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 BCE)515 and Diocles of Peparethus (fl. late 4th BCE).516
The Roman Tradition Having discussed Greek traditions about women in various philosophical traditions, we move on to Roman traditions. Many of the notable Roman philosophers had close interwoven relationships. For example, in late second century Rome, Gaius Laelius was a disciple of Diodes and Panaetius of Rome 517 (all members of the Scipionic Circle). P. 515
Eratosthenes was an imminent librarian of Alexandria who produced [now lost] works including poetry, philosophy, and mathematics. He is most known by his calculation of the circumference of the earth. See his article in the Suda and OCD. 516
Diocles of Peparethus was most likely a third century BCE historian. OCD sources E. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 820; A. Momigliano, Secundo contributo, 403; and J. A. Crook et al., eds., Cambridge Ancient History 7.2, 2nd ed. (1989), 89. Fraiser, Ptol. Alex. 2.1076 n. 373. P. J. van der Eijk, Diocles of Carystus: A Collection of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, vol. 1. Studies in Ancient Medicine 22 (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2000). Theano is mentioned in fragment 48d, sourced from Censorinus, DN 7.2-6 (p. 15, 13-16, 20 Rapisarda). “nam septimo mense parere mulerium posse plurimi adfirmant, ut Theano Pythagorica, Aristoteles peripateticus, Diocles, Euenor, Straton, Empedocles, Epigenes, multique praeterea, quorum omnium consensus Eurphonem Cnidium non deterret id ipsum intrepide pernegantem,” “Most of them affirm that a woman can give birth in the seventh month, as do Theano the Pythagorean, Aristotle the Peripatetic, Diocles, Evenor, Strato, Empedocles, Epigenes and many others; the agreement of all these does not deter Euryphon of Cnidus from intrepidly denying this very [statement].” Text and commentary from H. Diels and W. Krantz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols (Berlin: Weidmann, 1961), 58a [p. 448] and Rapisarda, Censorini De de natali liber ad Q. Caerellium (Bologna: Patron, 1991). 517
185-109 BCE. Son of Nicagoras from Rhodes. M. van Straaten, Panaetti Rhodii Fragmenta (Leiden: Brill, 1962). Succeeded Antipater as the head of the school in 129 BCE; student was Hecaton.
165 Rutilius Rufus, Aelius Stilo,518 and Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur 519 were also students of Panaetius of Rome and produced the notable students Cicero and Atticus. Scaevola himself married Laelia, the daughter of Lelius, and his wife, daughters, and granddaughters were famous for their excellent Latin. Quintillian (c. 35-100 CE) tells us that Cornelia, the mother of the Gracci, was well educated and skillful in rhetoric. Laelia520 and Hortensia521 were accomplished rhetors who learned the art from their fathers: Nec de patribus tantum loquor: nam Gracchorum eloquentiae multum contulisse accepimus Corneliam matrem, cuius doctissimus sermo in posteros quoque est epistulis traditus, et Laelia C. filia reddidisse in loquendo paternam elegantiam dicitur, et Hortensiae Q. filiae oratio apud triumviros habita legitur non tantum in sexus honorem. We are told that the eloquence of the Gracchi owed much to their mother Cornelia, whose letters even to this day testify to the cultivation of her style. Laelia, the daughter of Gaius Laelius, is said to have reproduced the elegance of her father’s language in her own speech, while the oration delivered before the triumvirs by Hortensia, the daughter of Quintus Hortensius, is still read and not merely as a compliment to her sex.522 518
Cic. Brut. 205-7, Leg. 2.23, 59; Suet. Gram. 2; Gell. 3.1.12; Quint. 10.1.99.
519
Bruce W. Frier, The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s “Pro Caecina.” Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985; O. F. Robinson, The Sources of Roman Laws: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians (London: Routledge, 1997); Olga Tellegen-Couperus, A Short History of Roman Law (London: Routledge, 1993). 520
Cf., Cic. Brut. 101, 211.
521
Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri 8.3.3; Appian, Civil Wars 2.32-4. Notably missing from OCD. See Plant, Women Writers, 104-5. Hortensia is famous for her speech against the taxes levied on the 1400 richest women in Rome in 42 BCE (Liv. 34.1). Cf., Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992), 81-3; W. Warde Fowler, Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero. A similar incident, the Oppian Law, occurred in 195 BCE. The situation was parodied by Poenulus, see Patricia A. Johnston, “Poenulus I, 2 and Roman Women,” TAPA 110 (1980): 143-159. 522
Quint. 1.1.6.
166 The practice of philosophers teaching their daughters has a long precedence. For example, Quintilian (c. 35-100 CE) tells us that Chrysippus (279-209 BCE) believed that ideally a girl should be trained in philosophy (1.1.4-5). Diodorus Cronus (d. c.284 BCE), the Megarian philosopher, taught his five daughters Menexene, Argia, Theognis, Artemesia, and Pantaclea, who were known as skilled dialecticians.523 Diogenes of Babylon524 (c. 240-152 BCE) the teacher of Laelius,525 the teacher of Quintus Lucilius Balbus (100 CE)526 followed Zeno of Tarsus (fl. 200 BCE) as head of the Stoa. Diogenes of Babylon and Crates of Mallus at Pergamum taught Panaetius (c.185-109 BCE), who taught Hecaton. The Stoic Diodotus lived in the house of Cicero, who no doubt taught his daughter Tullia (Att. 2.20.6). Areus Didymus (fl. late 1st BCE/ 1st CE) taught in the household of Augustus, and comforted the Empress Livia at the death of her son.527 Several elite Roman women in the first century BCE and CE oversaw their sons’ education: Cornelia for Tiberius and Caius Gracchus (Cic. Brut. 104), Aurelia for Caesar (Tac. Dial. 28), Atia for Octavius (Tac. Dial. 28) and Iulia Procilla for Iulius Agricola (Tac. Agr. 4.2-3). 523
Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19; OCD, 472; D. Sedley, “Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy,” PCPS 203 n.s. 23 (1977), 74. 524
Known only from the Herculaneum papyri. OCD, 474.
525
RE 12, ‘Laelius’ 3; H. H. Scullard, “Scipio Aemilianus and Roman Politics.” JRS 50 (1960): 62; A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1967); A. W. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action (London: Duckworth, 1990); Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols., with vol. 3 suppl. (New York, American Philological Association, 1951-52), 116. 526 527
Cic. Nat. D. 1.6, 3.40; Div. 1.5.
Sen. Marc. 3.4; Anthony Barrett, Livia: The First Lady of Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 122.
167 Pliny the Younger In the first century CE, Pliny the Younger praises the education and abilities of a young female relative and relishes in discourse with his wife. 528 In one of these letters, Pliny praises Calpurnia Hispulla for her excellent job in educating his third wife, Calpurnia. Pliny rejoices in his wife’s continued participation in education: reading his books and speeches listening to philosophical discussions. 529 Accedit his studium litterarum, quod ex mei caritate concepit. Meos libellos habet, lectitat, ediscit etiam. Qua illa sollicitudine, cum , videor acturus, quanto, cum egi, gaudio adficitur! Disponit qui nuntient sibi, quem adsensum, quos clamores excitarim, quem eventum iudicii tulerim. Eadem, si quando recito, in proximo discreta velo sedet laudesque nostras avidissimis auribus excipit. Versus quidem meos cantat etiam formatque cithara non artifice aliquo docente, sed amore, qui magister est optimus. Her affection to me has given her a turn to books; and my compositions, which she takes a pleasure in reading, and even getting by heart, are continually in her hands. How full of solicitude is she when I am entering upon any cause! How kindly does she rejoice with me when it is over! When I am pleading, she stations messengers to inform her from time to time how I am heard, what applauses I receive, and what success attends the cause. When at any time I recite my works, she sits close at hand, concealed behind a curtain, and greedily overhears my praises. She sings my verses and sets them to her lyre, with no other master but Love, the best instructor.530 This is a rare and important instance of a wealthy woman educating another woman, but the pattern of being educated in a wealthy household and furthering that education in her
528
Plin. Ep. 6.4 and 7.5. For commentary and historical value, see A. N. SherwinWhite, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1985), 259, 407. 529
Pliny's description of his wife's education seems more or less historical. See Hemelrijk, Matrona docta, 33; cf., Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 242-3 530
Plin. Ep. 4.19 (Gummere, LCL). In his commentary on Pliny, Sherwin-White treats this letter of Pliny as historical, The Letters of Pliny, 296-7.
168 husband’s home is familiar. Elsewhere, Pliny eulogizes the patroness Quadratilla for her continued interest in the education of her grandson, which reflects that of the papyri listed above.531
Seneca Seneca (c. 4-65 CE)532 cites philosophically educated women as he writes to his mother Helvia and close friend Marcia advising them not to neglect the study of philosophy because of their gender.533 He encourages both women to apply Stoic philosophy to their lives, notably applying well-known qualities self-control and selfsufficiency, the defining characteristics of the ideal wise-person and student of
531
Plin. Ep. 7.24.
532
Brad Inwood, “Seneca in His Philosophical Milieu,” HSCP 97, Greece in Rome: Influence, Integration, Resistance (1995): 63-76; G. Reydams-Schils, The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Whitney J. Oates, The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers: The Complete Extant Writings of Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius (New York: Modern, 1994); Jocelyn M. C. Toynbee, “Dictators and Philosophers in the First Century A. D.,” G&R 13, no. 38/39 (1944): 43-58; Anna Lydia Motto, “Seneca on Women’s Liberation,” CW 65, no. 5 (1972): 155-157; for the wealth of Pliny, see Richard Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 17-32. 533
Seneca, De Consulatione ad Helvium and De Consulatione ad Marcium. Rebecca Langlands analyzes the manner in which Seneca adapts to his female audience in “A Woman’s Influence on a Roman Text,” in Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization (London: Routledge, 2004), 115-26. We can read this in contrast to On Mercy 1.5.4 where he writes “Muliebre est furere in ira, ferarum vero nec generosarum quidem preamordere et urguere proiectos,” “It is for women to rage in anger, for wild beasts doubtless - and not even the noble sort of these - to bite and worry their prostrate victims,” (Basore, LCL).
169 philosophy. 534 Seneca writes to Marcia,535 the daughter of the late historian Cremutius Cordus, consoling her on the death of her son: Non dubito quin Iuliae Augustae, quam familiariter coluisti, magis tibi placeat exemplum: illa te ad suum consilium uocat. Illa in primo feruore, cum maxime inpatientes ferocesque sunt miseriae, consolandam se Areo, philosopho uiri sui, praebuit et multum eam rem profuisse sibi confessa est, plus quam populum Romanum, quem nolebat tristem tristitia sua facere, plus quam Augustum, qui subducto altero adminiculo titubabat nec luctu suorum inclinandus erat, plus quam Tiberium filium, cuius pietas efficiebat ut in illo acerbo et defleto gentibus funere nihil sibi nisi numerum deesse sentiret. I doubt not that the example of Julia Augusta, whom you regarded as an intimate friend, will seem more to your taste than the other; she summons you to follow her. She, during the first passion of grief, when its victims are most unsubmissive and most violent, made herself accessible to the philosopher Areus, the friend of her husband, and later confessed that she had gained much help from that source - more than from the Roman people, whom she was unwilling to sadden with this sadness of hers; more than from Augustus, who was staggering under the loss of one of his main supports, and was in no condition to be further bowed down by the grief of his dear ones; more than from her son Tiberius, whose devotion at that untimely funeral that made the nations weep kept her from feeling that she had suffered any loss except in the number of her sons.536 Seneca then imagines what Areus would have said to Julia Augusta and urges Marcia to follow the same advice, “It was your trouble, Marcia, that was dealt with there, it was at
534
Some defining qualities of self-sufficiency are fearlessness of death and poverty, able to renounce a good reputation, and invincibility. Teles Peri au0tarkei/aj 5H-20H; Cic. Off. 1.90, Tusc. 5.10.30; Epict. Disc. 4.5.4; and Sen. Const. 8-18. Cf. Diog. Laert. 2.27. The importance of self-sufficiency in the writings of Paul is made evident by Fitzgerald, Cracks in Earthen Vessels, 117-84; in the Thessalonian letters by Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 203-17; and in Philippians by Malherbe, “Paul’s Self-sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” 125-39. Musonius Rufus also applies the essential qualities of selfsufficiency to women in 3, 4, 13a. 535
On Marica see C. E. Manning, On Seneca's 'Ad Marciam' (Leiden: Brill,
536
Sen. Cons. Marc. 3.4.2 (Basore, LCL).
1981).
170 your side that Areus sat; change the role - it was you that he tried to comfort.”537 Seneca goes on to explain that the meaning of the oracle “Know Thyself” is realizing one’s mortality, and therefore philosophy will prepare her for any type of hardship. When Seneca was exiled by Caligula in 41 CE, he wrote a consolatory letter to his mother using similar arguments. He writes that Helvia had some philosophical education, and she should take refuge in what she knows as well as what she can still learn: Vtinam quidem uirorum optimus, pater meus, minus maiorum consuetudini deditus uoluisset te praeceptis sapientiae erudiri potius quam inbui! non parandum tibi nunc esset auxilium contra fortunam sed proferendum. Propter istas quae litteris non ad sapientiam utuntur sed ad luxuriam instruuntur minus te indulgere studiis passus est. Beneficio tamen rapacis ingenii plus quam pro tempore hausisti; iacta sunt disciplinarum omnium fundamenta: nunc ad illas reuertere; tutam te praestabunt. Would that my father, truly the best of men, had surrendered less to the practice of his forefathers, and had been willing to have you acquire a thorough knowledge of the teachings of philosophy instead of a mere smattering! In that case you would now have, not to devise, but merely to display, your protection against Fortune. But he did not suffer you to pursue your studies because of those women who do not employ learning as a means to wisdom, but equip themselves with it for the purpose of display. Yet, thanks to your acquiring mind, you imbibed more than might have been expected in the time you had; the foundations of all systematic knowledge have been laid. Do you return now to these studies; they will render you safe.538 Helvia is also instructed to teach the principles of Stoicism to her granddaughter Novatilla, who was an adult who had just lost her mother.539 Seneca (c. 4-65 CE) assures his mother that he is approaching his exile with Stoic resolve, but he indicates elsewhere that he failed in this regard. Arther Ferrill writes: 537
Sen. Cons. Marc. 3.4.2 (Basore, LCL).
538
Sen. Cons. Helv. 17.5 (Basore, LCL).
539
Sen. Cons. Helv. 18.7-8 (Basore, LCL).
171 Seneca hated Corsica. He referred to it as Corsica terribilis and spoke of himself as though he were among the living dead. His loneliness was overpowering: ‘Hic sola haec duo sunt: exul et exilium.’ It was in this atmosphere that Seneca wrote the Ad Helviam, and every word of it was written with an eye to recall.540 Ferrill goes on to argue that Seneca wrote ad Helviam not to comfort his mother, but in order to promote his feigned disinterest in politics so that he could be recalled from exile. Ferrill’s argument excludes the fact that many writers, including Seneca, wrote letters that were intended to be published. Pliny the Younger published his letters written from 95-108CE up to ten years after they were written. Unlike the letters of Cicero, which were spontaneous in nature, Pliny utilized a literary form that could be published later.541
Musonius Rufus and Heirocles The Stoics Musonius Rufus (fl. 1st CE) and Hierocles (fl. 2nd CE) both share a similar attitude towards a woman learning philosophy. Together, these thinkers give theoretical justification for what philosophers had been practicing for hundreds of years. Musonius Rufus writes that there is no significant difference between a woman and a man, at least in as much as gender does not hinder philosophical reflection: “Women as well as men have received from the gods the gift of reason, which we use in our dealings with one another and by which we judge whether a thing is good or bad, right or
540
Arther Ferrill, “Seneca’s Exile and the Ad Helviam: A Reinterpretation,” C Phil 61, no. 4 (1966): 253-257. 541
A. N. Sherwin-White, “Pliny, the Man and His Letters,” G&R, 2nd ser. 16, no. 1 (1969): 76-90.
172 wrong.”542 In fact, Musonius (fl. 1st CE) exhorts women to learn philosophy so that they can better carry out their duties at home. 543 kai ti/j a2n ma~llon th~j filoso&fou toiau&th ge/noito h3n ge a)na&gkh pa~sa, ei1per ei1h tw ~ o1nti filo&sofoj, to_ men a)dikei=n tou~ a)dikei=sqai xei=ron nomi/zein, o3sw per ai1sxion, to_ de e0lattou~sqai tou~ pleonektei=n krei=tton u(polamba&nein, e1ti de kai te/kna ma~llon a)gapa~n h2 to_ zh~n; th~j d’ e0xou&shj ou3tw ti/j a2n ei1h gunh_ dikaiote/ra; kai mh_n kai a)ndreiote/ran ei]nai prosh&kei gunai=ka th~j a)paideu&tou th_n pepaideume/nhn kai th_n filo&sofon th~j i0diw&tidoj: w(j mh&te qana&tou fo&bw mh&te o1knw tw ~ pro_j po&non u(pomei=nai/ ti ai0sxro&n, mhd’ u(popth~cai mhdeni o3ti eu)genh_j h2 o3ti dunato_j h2 o3ti plou&sioj h2 kai nh_ Di/a o3ti tu&rannoj. And who better than the woman trained in philosophy – and she certainly of necessity if she has really acquired philosophy – would be disposed to look upon doing a wrong as worse then suffering one (as much as it is the baser), and to regard being worsted as better than gaining an unjust advantage? Moreover, who better than she would love her children more than life itself? What woman would be more just than such a one? Now as for courage, certainly it is to be expected that the educated woman will be more courageous than the uneducated, and one who has studied philosophy than one who has not; and she will not therefore submit to anything shameful because of fear of death or unwillingness to face hardship, and she will not be intimidated by anyone of noble birth, or powerful, or weathly, no, not even if he be the tyrant of the city. 544 Musonius argues that the philosophically educated woman will be more mild-tempered, self-controlled, courageous, and chaste than an uneducated woman. This argument uncovers his bias that Stoic philosophy is most useful for anyone, but also that a woman could learn it and apply it to the common situation of women in the ancient world: the household. Apparently, philosophically educated women were such a common occurrence that Musonius goes on to address related questions:
542
Muson. 3.36 (That Women too Should Study Philosophy). Lutz, 34.
543
C. E. Manning, “Seneca and the Stoics on the Equality of the Sexes,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 26, no. 2 (1973): 170-177. 544
Muson. 3.30. Lutz, 43.
173 a)lla_ nh_ Di/a, fasi/ tinej, o3ti au)qa&deij w(j e0pi polu_ kai qrasei/aj ei]nai a)na&gkh ta_j prosiou&saj toi=j filoso&foij gunai=kaj, o3tan a)fe/menai tou~ oi0kourei=n e0n me/soij a)nastre/fwntai toi=j a)ndra&si kai meletw~si lo&gouj kai sofi/zwntai kai a)nalu&wsi sullogismou&j, de/on oi1koi kaqhme/naj talasiourgei=n. e0gw_ de ou)x o3pwj ta_j gunai=kaj ta_j filosofou&saj a)ll’ ou)de tou_j a1ndraj a)ciw&saim’ a2n a)feme/nouj tw~n proshko&ntwn e1rgwn ei]nai peri lo&gouj mo&non: a)lla_ kai o3souj metaxeiri/zontai lo&gouj, tw~n e1rgwn fhmi dei=n e3neka metaxeiri/zesqai au)tou&j. Yes, but I assure you, some will say, that women who associate themselves with philosophers are bound to be arrogant for the most part and presumptuous, in that abandoning their own households and turning to the company of men they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms, when they should be at home spinning. I should not expect women to study philosophy to shirk their appointed tasks for mere talk any more than men, but I maintain that their discussions should be conducted for the sake of personal application.545 Musonius Rufus assures his readers that he does not think that women should abandon their traditional roles in the household and practice philosophical discourse with men in the forums, debate in the symposia, and public teaching. This idea is related to the expectation that the poetess still do her household chores, the negative tradition that Hipparchia completely refused to be a common housewife, and the depiction of women philosophers in Epicureanism as prostitutes. An underlying theme in Musonius Rufus is that philosophically educated women – like other educated women – have the tools to be liberated from the inhuman position of women idealized by Roman society. Like Musonius Rufus (fl. 1st CE), Hierocles the Stoic (fl. 2nd CE) believed that the wiseman should marry and be one with his wife in the pursuit of virtue. Illaria Ramelli writes: Hierocles touches on his most important point: marriage is not only a duty but it is also a beautiful thing, of kalo/n, since it is orientated toward the pursuit of virtue. This idea of sharing the path of virtue is no longer the privledge only of philosophers who are friends with one another but also of wives and husbands, in 545
Muson. 3.56. Lutz, 43.
174 communion that, for Hierocles as well as for Musonius, is not just one of bodies with a view to procreation but still more one of souls, carrying with it a moral commitment: marriage becomes a spiritual bond in the pursuit of virtue, which is the goal of philosophy itself, according to the Stoics.546 Musonius Rufus and Heirocles have similar views on the role of philosophy in the lives of women. They both appear to have a somewhat egalitarian view of education, but both relegate men and women to their traditional roles. The redeeming quality of their application of Stoicism to family life is their shared belief that philosophy helps people to live the best possible life, whether in traditional male or female roles.
Summary of Conclusions: Women in the History of Philosophy In chapter three, I presented evidence for the activity of women in the history of philosophy. All of the popular schools that were active in the first century had a rich history of the participation of women in their philosophical heritage. There were different levels of philosophical education. Some women were remembered as influential philosophers in their own right: Theano the Pythagorean, Hipparchia the Cynic, Laodice the Epicurean, and Arete the Cyrenian. These earlier traditions were alive in the first century BCE/CE. Several pseudo-Pythagorean letters present themselves as authored by and written to philosophically educated women. The Socratic and Cynic epistles also include writings from philosophers to their female colleagues. Seneca, Musonius Rufus, and Heirocles – Paul’s Stoic contemporaries – supported the philosophical education of
546
Ilaria Ramelli, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Exerpts, trans. David Konstan (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 115 n. 23. See Hierocles, On Marriage = Stob. 4.67.22-24, 4.75.14.
175 women so that they could most effectively live as women in their first century social constructs. A few notable examples indicate that philosophically educated women taught other women, and others criticized their male counterparts. The Pythagorean philosopher Damo taught the secret tenents of Pythagoreanism to her daughter Bistala. While only a fragment remains, Batis the Epicurean wrote a letter to her niece Apia. Seneca encouraged Helvia to teach Stoic principles to her grand-daughter Novatilla to help her greive properly for the loss of her mother. Calpurnia Hispulla was responsible for educating her neice, Calpurnia, and Pliny the Younger is thankful for her preparedness to participate in philosophical discussions with him. Most philosophically educated women learned from family members in a wealthy household. This is especially true in the sources contemporary to Paul: Pliny the Younger, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, and Heirocles describe the educational activities of women near the top of the social strata. Seneca, who was a friend to emperors and their families, encouraged his mother Helvia and the daughter of a historian of senatorial rank to ulitilze Stoic philosophy to overcome loss. Pliny the Younger, a senator, rejoices in his wife’s company. Musonius Rufus and Heirocles provide instructions for how wealthy women could use Stoic principles to best manage their households. Similarly, the pseudoPythagorean letters present themseleves as instructions for the management of a wealthy household. Most philosophically educated women were educated by their fathers, and sometimes their learning was continued with their husbands. However, there are three examples of philosophically edcated women who taught their sons and other men.
176 Theano teaches both Pythgoras and their son; Diotima and Aspasia teach Socrates and his associates; and Arete the Cyrenian taught her son. Some women philosophers argued against male thinkers. Hipparchia the Cynic sharply rebuked Theodorus the Atheist for criticizing her participation in philosophical discourse. Leontion the Epicurean wrote a book criticizing Theophrastus. When Paul wrote his epistles to the Corinthians, philosophical education was available to many different types of women. They could be educated by a female relative or her father, husband, son, a tutor, or a philosopher that she brings into the household herself. These women were typically connected to a wealthy household: either the woman is a member of a wealthy family or attached to one as the relative of someone dependent such a household. She could learn from any combination of schools that were active in the Roman world: neo-Pythagoreanism, middle-Platonism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism. In chapter four, I will discuss the many contacts of these schools to Corinth to build an argument for the presense of philosophically educated women there.
CHAPTER 4: CORINTH AND ITS PHILOSOPHERS
In chapters two and three, I reviewed the evidence for educated women and girls, and specifically, in chapter three, of philosophically educated women. I have argued that such women learned philosophy from a variety of media: they attended schools, learned from their husbands or fathers, or received teaching from a tutor in the household. I have also shown that philosophy was not the only education that women received. The archeological and literary records indicated that women were involved in the full spectrum of Greek education, including athletics and dance. Women were also involved in occupations which required some literacy: poetry, medicine, and being a scribe or grocer. Establishing the existence of philosophically educated women has been a necessary step toward considering how women in Corinth might have engaged 1 Corinthians. In this chapter, our focus centers on Corinth and the community of Jesus-believers in the city. I will discuss the history of the city of Corinth, giving some attention to its social structures and to the existence and roles of philosophically educated women. Then, I will review the nature of philosophy at Corinth as described by ancient writers. Corinth has a heritage of being a refuge where philosophers and orators could engage in open debate without fear of persecution. Before its destruction in 146 BCE by the Romans, deposed tyrants and exiled philosophers who faced death for their views in other cities were able to live peacefully in Corinth. After Corinth was re-founded in 46 BCE as 177
178 a Roman colony, the popular schools continued to maintain representation. It is significant that the history of philosophy in Corinth has contact with all the schools that have strong traditions of philosophically educated women. The Corinthian church is situated within these contexts. In order to establish the likelihood of philosophically educated women engaging the writing we know as 1 Corinthians, I will examine the presence of women in the community, issues of social status, and the importance of households in locating philosophically educated women. Considering the nature of some of the problems that Paul faced in Corinth, it is likely that women indeed had access to philosophical education.
Classical Corinth The city of Corinth was founded in the 900s BCE, and the area had been inhabited since 5200 BCE.547 The area of land that Corinth controlled in classical times was 559.234m2 (900km2). The land was fertile, and the earth produced enough wealth so that the early Corinth was known for its wealth before the city was known for both land and sea trade.548 Trade from the north and south of Greece had to pass through Corinth, and the Isthmus connected Asia to Italy. 549 Because of the abundance of natural resources from which the Corinthians fashioned their legendary bronze, the control over trade
547
R. J. Hopper, “Ancient Corinth,” G&R, 2nd ser., 2, no. 1 (1955), 4; T. J. Dunbabin, “The Early History of Corinth,” JHS 68 (1948): 59-69. 548
J. B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City until 338BC (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1997), 19-36; Carl Roebuck, “Some Aspects of Urbanization in Corinth,” Hesperia 41, no. 1 (1972): 96-127. 549
Strab. 8.6.20.
179 routes added to Corinthian wealth.550 The Corinthians participated in a number of wars, with its final mistake being aggression towards Sparta which resulted in its destruction in 146 BCE by Mimmius. 551 While the destruction was proverbial, it is likely that there were people living amoung the ruins throughout its 100 years of desolation.552 The Isthmus was still being used for both private and military553 purposes, and the Isthmian games were kept alive by nearby Sikyon.554 Classical Corinth was very accommodating to religious worship, having numerous santuaries or temples dedicated to various gods.555 The most prominent religions in Corinth consisted of hero 556 and heroine worship, 557 the usual gods of the 550
D. M. Jacobson and M. P. Weitzman, “What Was Corinthian Bronze?,” AJA 96, no. 2 (1992): 237-247. 551
Plb. 38.3-11; Strab. 8.6.23; Cass. Dio 21.72. Cf., App. Hisp. 56.153.
552
Irene Bald Romano, “A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146-44 B. C.),” Hesperia 63, no. 1 (1994): 57-104; Benjamin W. Millis, ‘“Miserable Huts” in Post-146 B.C. Corinth,” Hesperia 75, no. 3 (2006): 397-404. 553
L. Ross Taylor and Allen B. West, Corinth, 8.2 Latin inscriptions, 1896-1926 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 1 no. 1. 554
W. J. McMurtry, “Excavations by the American School at the Theatre of Sikyon. I. General Report of the Excavations,” AJA 5, no. 3 (1889): 267-286. 555
Nancy Bookidis, “The Sanctuaries of Corinth,” Corinth, 20: Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996 (2003): 247-259; Oscar Broneer, “Twenty-Five Years Ago: Cults at St. Paul’s Corinth,” BA 39, no. 4 (1976): 158-159; Oscar Broneer, “Paul and the Pagan Cults at Isthmia,” HTR 64, no. 2/3 (1971): 169-187; Oscar Broneer, “Paul’s Missionary Work in Greece,” BA 14, no. 4 (1951): 77-96. 556
Oscar Broneer, “Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora,” Hesperia 11, no. 2 (1942): 128-161; Gina Salapata, “Hero Warriors from Corinth and Lakonia,” Hesperia 66, no. 2 (1997): 245-260. 557
Jennifer Larson, Greek Heroine Cults (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), 91, 124, 129-30, 138-9, 141-2.
180 Pantheon, 558 and their patron gods Demeter559 and Poseidon.560 The Isthmian games as religious celebrations were dedicated to Poseidon, but the heroes and other gods played a prominent part in worship and entertainment.561 These biennial games included sometimes fatal combat sports such as wrestling and boxing,562 foot races, chariot races, the pancration, pentathalon,563 and perhaps a ship race.564 Prizes included not only first place (typically celery or pine crowns),565 but second place and lower (prizes ranged from
558
Nancy Bookidis and Ronald S. Stroud, “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture,” Corinth 18, no. 3 (1997): iii-v, vii, ix-xxiii, xxv, 1-11, 1317, 19-51, 53-83, 85-151, 153-301, 303-391, 393-421, 423-481, 483-497, 499-505, 507510. 559
Nancy Bookidis, Julie Hansen, Lynn Snyder, and Paul Goldberg, “Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth,” Hesperia 68, no. 1 (1999): 1-54. 560
Elizabeth R. Gebhard, “The Early Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia,” AJA 91, no. 3 (1987): 475-476; Charles Kaufman Williams II, “The City of Corinth and Its Domestic Religion,” Hesperia 50, no. 4, Greek Towns and Cities: A Symposium (1981): 408-421; Richard E. DeMaris, “Demeter in Roman Corinth: Local Development in a Mediterranean Religion,” Numen 42, no. 2 (1995): 105-117. 561
John G. Hawthorne, “The Myth of Palaemon,” TAPA 89 (1958): 92-98.
562
Robert Brophy and Mary Brophy, “Deaths in the Pan-Hellenic Games II: All Combative Sports,” AJP 106, no. 2 (1985): 171-198; cf., M. B. Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). Clarence A. Forbes, “Crime and Punishment in Greek Athletics,” CJ 47, no. 5 (1952): 169-173, 202-203. 563
A five-contest event including the long jump, javelin throw, and discus throw, the stadion, and wrestling. 564
Percy Gardner, “Boat-Races among the Greeks,” JHS 2 (1881): 90-97; Jordan, “Ithmian Amusements,” 38; cf., D. J. Geagan, “Notes on the Agonistic Institutions of Roman Corinth,” GRBS 9 (1968): 69-76. 565
Oscar Broneer, “The Isthmian Victory Crown,” AJA 66, no. 3 (1962): 259.
181 honors to monetary rewards, as it was with other Pan-Hellenic games). 566 Slaves and freedmen were a part of the games, either as trainers, attendents, or (rarely) as athletes [typically associated with the household of a weathly person].567 Women and girls competed in a parallel festival, which included poetry contests. “Aristomache of Erythra had been twice victorious in epic poetry at the Isthmia in the third century BCE.” 568 Festivities at the Isthmian games included choral singing, poetry and musical contests, and philosophical debates.
Roman Corinth The Corinth that Paul saw was a Roman Corinth, founded as Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis in 46 BCE.569 The process of Roman colonization in Corinth is important to consider because it sets the background for the organization and population of the city when Paul arrives 100 years later.570 Like the curiae in Spain, Roman Corinth was
566
Nigel B. Crowther, “Second-Place Finishes and Lower in Greek Athletics (Including the Pentathlon),” ZPE 90 (1992): 97-102. This continued through the Roman period. 567
Nigel B. Crowther, “Slaves and Greek Athletics,” QUCC n.s. 40, no. 1 (1992):
35-42. 568
Plut. Mor. 675b (Minar et al, LCL). Mattthew Dillon, “Did Parthenoi Attend the Olympic Games? Girls and Women Competing, Spectating, and Carrying out Cult Roles at Greek Religious Festivals,” Hermes 128, no. 4 (2000): 457-480; see also above in chapter 2, n. 287-8. 569
Oscar Broneer, “Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis,” Hesperia 10, no. 4 (1941), 388-390; Mary E. Hoskins Walbank, “What’s in a Name? Corinth under the Flavians,” ZPE 139 (2002): 251-264; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Corinth That Saint Paul Saw,” BA 47, no. 3 (1984): 147-159. 570
Cedric A. Yeo, “The Founding and Function of Roman Colonies,” CW 52, no. 4 (1959): 104-107, 129-130; P. L. MacKendrick, “Roman Colonization,” Phoenix 6, no.
182 organized according to tribes usually associated with the ruling class in Rome. 571 L. R. Dean has found in the inscriptions at Corinth that the “names which have been preserved are Aelia, Antonia, Antoniniana, Augusta, Aurelia, Caelestia, Commoda, Iovia, Iulia felix, Papiria, Sabina, Saturnia, Severiana, and Traiana.”572 Strabo (c. 63-24 BCE/CE) tells us that most of the colonists were freedmen, many of whom gained wealth through digging up pottery, brass, and other valuables and selling them back to Rome.573 The sons of these freedmen would have become Roman citizens 574 and perhaps a few of these Corinthians moved up through the ranks of public office, status, and wealth. The expulsions of some Jews from Rome in 19 CE by the Roman Senate and by Claudius in
4 (1952): 139-146; David Gilman Romano, “Roman Surveyors in Corinth,” PAPhS 150, no. 1 (2006): 62-85; Richard D. Weigel, “Roman Colonial Commissioners and Prior Service,” Hermes 113, no. 2 (1985): 224-231. 571
David Gilman Romano, “City Planning, Centuriation, and Land Division in Roman Corinth: Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis & Colonia Iulia Flavia Augusta Corinthiensis,” Corinth 20, Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996 (2003): 279-301; Oscar Broneer, “Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis,” Hesperia 10, no. 4 (1941): 388-390; Nicholas F. Jones, “The Civic Organization of Corinth,” TAPA 110 (1980): 161-193; Nicholas F. Jones, “The Organization of Corinth Again,” ZPE 120 (1998): 49-56. 572
L. R. Dean, “Latin Inscriptions from Corinth,” AJA 22, no. 2 (1918): 189-197.
573
Strab. 8.6.23. Strabo does not mention how Caesar chose the colonists. Cf., Susan Treggiari, Roman Freedmen During the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1969); P. R. C. Weaver, “Social Mobility in the Early Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Imperial Freedmen and Slaves,” P&P Barja de Quiroga, “Freedmen Social Mobility in Roman Italy,” Historia 44, no. 3 (1995): 326-348; Andrew Lintott, “Freedmen and Slaves in the Light of Legal Documents from First-Century A.D. Campania,” CQ, n. s., 52, no. 2 (2002): 555-565. 574
Treggiari, Roman Freedmen, 229; Jane Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen (New York: Routledge, 2002); Bruce W. Frier, A Casebook on Roman Family Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
183 49 CE may have supplied the new Roman colony with the majority of its early Jewish inhabitants.575 Roman Corinth continued to worship the same gods as the pre-Roman Corinthians.576 The Romans worshipped both the Greek pantheon as well as the Roman gods, and continued the worship of Demeter and Poesidon as patron gods.577 The Roman games were integrated, as were all things, into the patronage system. 578 The Isthmian games were revived at about the time that Corinth was founded as a colony.579
Philosophers in Corinth Philosophers were active in both classical and Roman Corinth, and unfortunately the evidence concerning their lives and teachings is fragmentary. While it was nowhere near the stature of Athens, the hub of ancient philosophy, Corinth served as a place where ideas could be exchanged freely. Perhaps the earliest sources are legends regarding the wisdom of Periander, a 7th century BCE tyrant of Corinth.580 Cicero tells us that 575
Leonard Victor Rutgers, “Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.,” CA 13, no. 1 (1994): 56-74. 576
Nancy Bookidis, Religion in Corinth: 146 B.C.E to 100 C. E.,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Harvard Theological Studies 53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 577
Oscar Broneer, “Paul and the Pagan Cults at Isthmia,” HTR 64, no. 2/3 (1971):
169-187. 578
Daniel J. Geagan, “The Isthmian Dossier of P. Licinius Priscus Juventianus,” Hesperia 58, no. 3 (1989): 349-360. 579
Mika Kajava, “Isthmian Games,” 168-178; cf., Oscar Broneer, “The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games,” BA 25, no. 1 (1962): 1-31. 580
Diod. Sic. 9.7 tells us that Periander was removed from the Seven Wise Men because he had become a tyrant.
184 Dicaearchus (fl. 320-300 BCE), a pupil of Aristotle, held a philosophical discussion on the soul in Corinth: Dicaearchus autem in eo sermone, quem Corinthi habitum tribus libris exponit, doctorum hominum disputantium primo libro multos loquentes facit; duobus Pherecratem quendam Phthiotam senem, quem ait a Deucalione ortum, disserentem inducit nihil esse omnino animum, et hoc esse nomen totum inane, frustraque animalia et animantis appellari, neque in homine inesse animum vel animam nec in bestia, vimque omnem eam, qua vel agamus quid vel sentiamus, in omnibus corporibus vivis aequabiliter esse fusam nec separabilem a corpore esse, quippe quae nulla sit, nec sit quicquam nisi corpus unum et simplex, ita figuratum ut temperatione naturae vigeat et sentiat. But Dicæarchus, in that discourse of some learned disputants, held at Corinth, which he details to us in three books—in the first book introduces many speakers; and in the other two he introduces a certain Pherecrates, an old man of Phthia, who, as he said, was descended from Deucalion; asserting, that there is in fact no such thing at all as a soul, but that it is a name without a meaning; and that it is idle to use the expression “animals,” or “animated beings;” that neither men nor beasts have minds or souls, but that all that power by which we act or perceive is equally infused into every living creature, and is inseparable from the body, for if it were not, it would be nothing; nor is there anything whatever really existing except body, which is a single and simple thing, so fashioned as to live and have its sensations in consequence of the regulations of nature.581 Unfortunately, this episode is only mentioned here in ancient literature.582 The most important thing that this passage tells us is that Cicero thinks it appropriate to place a well-known student of Aristotle in Corinth with other debating learned people concerning the nature of the soul. 583 581
Cic. Tusc. 1.21 (Yonge, LCL).
582
It appears that this work is lost and no other writer in the ancient world mentions it, cf., W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf, Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001), 19. 583
For details concerning the nature of the soul in this reference, see R. W. Sharples, “Dicaearchus on the Soul and Divination,” in Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion, ed. William W. Fortenbaug and Eckhart Schütrumpf, Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 10 (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001), 146.
185 Themistius, quoting a lost work of Aristotle, tells us that a Corinthian farmer was so impressed with Gorgias that after reading it, he went to Athens to be a student of Plato.584 Several sources suggest that Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, fled to Corinth to become a school teacher. For example, Philo, a contemporary of Paul, writes: a)rxai basile/wn ai9 me/gistai kaqh re/qhsan braxei/a kairou~ r(oph ~. e0ggua~tai/ mou to_n lo&gon Dionu&sioj o( e0n Kori/nqw , o4j Sikeli/aj men tu&rannoj h}n, e0kpesw_n de th~j h(gemoni/aj ei0j Ko&rinqon katafeu&gei kai grammatisth_j o( tosou~toj h(gemw_n gi/netai. The most mighty powers and authority of kings have been overthrown, and have disappeared in a very brief moment of time. There is an example to testify to the truth of my argument in Dionysius, who lived at Corinth, who had been tyrant of Sicily, and who, after he was expelled from his dominions, took refuge in Corinth; and though he had been so mighty a sovereign, became a schoolmaster.585 P. Oxy. 12 is a chronology of various events during the fourth century CE, and this papyrus contains a similar history of Dionysius: [o)lum pia&di e0na&thi kai e9]k?a?[tosth~i e0ni/ka sta&dion 0Arist[o&]lukoj [ 0Aqhnai=o]j, h}rxon d’ 0Aqh&nhsi [Luki/skoj Pu]qo&dotoj Swsi g[e/nh]j Ni[ko&]maxoj. tau&thj kata_ de to_ deu&teron e1toj Dionu& sioj o( deu&teroj th~j Sikeli/aj tu&rannoj e0kpesw_n th~j a)rxh~j kate/pleusen ei0j Ko& rinqon kai e0kei= kate/meine gra&mmata dida&skwn. kata_ de to_n te/tarton Bagw&aj eu)nou~xoj ]Wxon to_n basile/ a tw~n Persw~n dolofonh& saj to_n new&taton au)tou~ tw~n ui9w~n 1Arshn kate/sthse ba sile/a, au)to_j pa&nta dioikw~n. [In the 109th Olympiad] [344 B.C.] Aristolycus [of Athens won the stadion race], and the archons at Athens were [Lyciscus], Pythodotus, Sosigenes and Nicomachus. In the second year Dionysius II, tyrant of Sicily, fell from power and sailed off to Corinth, where he survived as a schoolteacher. In the fourth year the eunuch Bagoas murdered Ochus, the king of the Persians, and set up Arses who
584
Them. Or. 295c-d; Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle, vol 12, Selected Fragments, ed. William David Ross (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1952), 23-4; Aristotle, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, ed. Valentin Rose (Lipsiae: B.G. Teubneri, 1886), frag. 64. Greek text appears in George Grote, Plato, and the Other Companions of Sokrates (London: John Murray, 1865), 2:317. 585
Philo, On Joseph 132 (Yonge, Works of Philo).
186 was the youngest of Ochus’ sons as king, while he himself controlled the whole government.586 Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) associates Dionysius with Plato, “ 0Ekpesw_n de th~j a)rxh~j pro_j men to_n ei0po&nta ‘ti/ se Pla&twn kai filosofi/a w)fe/lhse;‘ ‘to_ thlikau&thn‘ e1fh ‘tu&xhj metabolh_n r(a di/wj u(pome/nein,’” “When he was deposed from his government, and one asked him what he got by Plato and philosophy, he answered, ‘That I may bear so great a change of fortune patiently.’”587 There are even some unreliable traditions that Plato himself wrestled at the Isthmian games, winning twice.588 Athenaeus (fl. late 2nd CE) writes that Dionysius participated in some attacks on the school at Athens, notably using Lastheneia against them. Dionu&sioj gou~n o( th~j Sikeli/aj tu&rannoj e0n th ~ pro_j au)to_n 0Epistolh ~ kata_th~j filhdoni/aj au)tou~ ei0pw_n kai filarguri/an au)tw ~ o)neidi/zei kai to_n Lasqenei/aj th~j 0Arkadikh~j e1rwta, h3tij kai Pla&twnoj h)khko&ei. At all events Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, in his letter to [Speusippus] blaming him for his fondness for pleasure, reproaches him also for his covetousness, and for his love of Lastheneia the Arcadian, who had been a pupil of Plato.589 Corinth produced many Cynic philosophers. In the fourth century BCE, Xeniades of Corinth purchased Diogenes of Sinope and later convinced Monimus, another slave, to
586
P. Oxy 12.4 = FGrH 255.4.
587
Plut. Mor. 176.
588
Diog. Laert. 3.4. Alice Swift Riginos notes that the earliest tradition of Plato’s competing in the pan-Hellenic games places him at Isthmia. Later traditions place him in one or more of the three other games, and his winning is also a later development, Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 41. David C. Young asserts that there is no record anywhere in ancient literature of a person being both a superior intellectual and athlete, A Brief History of the Olympic Games (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 81. 589
Ath. 12.66.15. See also 7.10.9.
187 follow his Cynic teachings. There is a tradition recorded by Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) that Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435 - c.356 BCE) , whose grandson was taught by his mother, Arete, visited Corinth twice: Toiou~toj men o( Qeo&dwroj ka)n tou&toij. teleutai=on d’ ei0j Kurh&nhn a)pelqw_n kai Ma&ga sumbiou_j e0n pa&sh timh ~ diete/lei tugxa&nwn. e1nqen to_ prw~ton e0kballo&menoj le/getai xa&rie/n ti ei0pei=n: fhsi ga&r, “kalw~j poiei=te, a1ndrej Kurhnai=oi, e0k th~j Libu&hj ei0j th_n 9Ella&da me e0cori/zontej.” They say also that on one occasion he came to Corinth, bringing with him a great many disciples; and that Metrocles the Cynic, who was washing leeks said to him, “You, who are a Sophist, would not have wanted so many pupils, if you had washed vegetables.” And Theodorus, taking him up, replied, “And if you had known how to associate with men, you would not have cared about those vegetables.”590 Ei0j Ko&rinqon au)tw ~ ple/onti/ pote kai xeimazome/nw sune/bh taraxqh~nai. pro_j ou}n to_n ei0po&nta, “h(mei=j men oi9 i0diw~tai ou) dedoi/kamen, u(mei=j d’ oi9 filo&sofoi deilia~te,” “ou) ga_r peri o(moi/aj,” e1fh, “yuxh~j a)gwniw~men e3kastoi.” Once it happened, that when he was sailing to Corinth, he was overtaken by a violent storm; and somebody said, “We common individuals are not afraid, but you philosophers are behaving like cowards;” he said, “Very likely, for we have not both us the same kind of souls at stake.”591 The same Theodorus who challenges Metrocles the Cynic in Corinth also criticized his sister Hipparchia the Cynic. 592 Corinth was a safe-haven for Xenophon of Athens and his children (c. 394 BCE), and he remained there until his death. Antipater of Sidon (fl. 2nd BCE) preserves this event:
590
Diog. Laert. 2.103.
591
Diog. Laert. 2.71.
592
6.97).
In both traditions he is referred to as Theodorus the Atheist (Diog. Laert. 2.85;
188 Ei0 kai se/, Cenofwn, Kranaou+ Ke/kropo/j te poli=tai feu/gein kate/gnwn tou= fi/lou xa/rin Ku/rou, a0lla Ko/rinqoj e1dekto filo/cenoj, h?{ sufilhdw=n ou3twj a0re/skh? kei=qi kai me/nern e1gnwj. If the citizens of Cranaus and Cecrops condemned you, Xenophon, to exile because of your friend Cyrus, yet hospitable Corinth received you, with which you were so pleased and content, and decided to remain there.593 In the first century, Demetrius of Corinth was a well-known Cynic and friend of Seneca the Younger.594 Demetrius was born in Corinth and educated in Athens (fl. 37-71 CE) – he was considered the ideal philosopher by Seneca 595 and Epictetus.596 Demetrius of Corinth was also friends with the famous senator Thrasea, a Stoic. There are many traditions that associate Demetrius with philosophically educated women. The story of Thrasea’s death, a forced suicide by Nero, was quite popular in the ancient world. When one of his closest friends, Domitius Caecilianus, brought Thrasea the news of his condemnation by Nero, he found him in philosophical discussion with Demetrius in the presense of many hearers. Tum ad Thraseam in hortis agentem quaestor consulis missus vesperascente iam die. inlustrium virorum feminarumque coetus frequentis egerat, maxime intentus Demetrio Cynicae institutionis doctori. Then, as evening approached, the consul’s quaestor was sent to Thrasea, who was passing his time in his garden. He had had a crowded gathering of distinguished 593
Anth. Pal. 7.98.
594
Sen. Ep. 20.9; 62.3; 91.19; Ben. 7.8-11; Tac. Ann. 16.34; Hist. 4.40 (not a favorable reference – he says that Demetrius plead the cause of a criminal by avoiding fair argument); Dio Cass. 65; Lucian, Toxaris; Suet. Vesp. 13 (More on Vespasian’s explusion of Demetrius); Philostr. V A 4.2. Cf., R. Bracht Branham, Marie-Odile GouletCazé, The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 393. 595
Sen. Ben. 7.8.
596
Epict. Disc. 1.25.3. Cf., Eunap. VS 2.1.5; Philostr. V A 4.25.
189 men and women, giving special attention to Demetrius, a professor of the Cynic philosophy.597 Tacitus makes it clear that Thrasea knew he was going to die, so it is appropriate that he he gathered his friends together to discuss with Demetrius the nature of the soul and the separation of spirit and body. 598 Because Thrasea was a senator,599 it is likely that the discussion group consisted of his elite (“distinguished”) friends and their wives, but widows and unaccompanied wives could have attended as well. As for what Thrasea himself may have taught, it certainly aligns with his Stoic outlook: e1lege ga_r o3ti “ei0 men e0me mo&non o( Ne/rwn foneu&sein e1melle, pollh_n a2n ei]xon toi=j a1lloij u(perkolakeu&ousin au)to_n suggnw&mhn: ei0 de kai e0kei/nwn tw~n sfo&dra au)to_n e0painou&ntwn pollou_j tou_j men a)na&lwke tou_j de kai a)pole/sei, ti/ xrh_ ma&thn a)sxhmonou~nta douloprepw~j fqarh~nai, e0co_n e0leuqeri/wj a)podou~nai th ~ fu&sei to_o)feilo&menon; e0mou~ men ga_r pe/ri kai e1peita lo&goj tij e1stai, tou&twn de/, plh_n kat' au)to_ tou~to o3ti e0sfa&ghsan, ou)dei/j.” toiou~toj men o( Qrase/aj e0ge/neto, kai tou~to a)ei pro_j e9auto_n e1legen “e0me Ne/rwn a)poktei=nai men du&natai, bla&yai de ou1.” He used to say, for example: “If I were the only one that Nero was going to put to death, I could easily pardon the rest who load him with flatteries. But since even among those who praise him to excess there are many whom he has either already disposed of or will yet destroy, why should one degrade oneself to no purpose and then perish like a slave, when one may pay the debt to nature like a freeman? As for me, men will talk of me hereafter, but of them never, except only to record the fact that they were put to death.” Such was the man that Thrasea showed himself to be;
597
Tac. Ann. 16.35. Thrasea continually aggravated Nero, which led to his death. Cf., Tac. Ann. 13.49; 14.12 (walked out of the Senate during Agrippina’s case); 15.20-22 (short speech to the senate); 16.21-35 (Nero kills him for the Agrippina incident and not supporting the Juvenile games); Hist. 2.91, 5.5; Dio Cass. 62.15; cf., Juv. 5.36. Toynbee, “Dictators and Philosophers,” 49-58. 598 599
Tact. Ann. 16.34.
Oswyn Murray provides a detailed review of Thrasea’s career in “The ‘Quinquennium Neronis’ and the Stoics,” Historia 14, no. 1 (1965): 41-61.
190 and he was always saying to himself: “Nero can kill me, but he cannot harm me.”600 Thrasea would not indulge Nero by supporting his games, or listening to him at the theatre, and he had a bad habit of walking out of the Senate – or not appearing at all – demonstrating that he did not like the laws which were passed to flatter Nero. For these reasons Dio Cassius tells us that Nero killed him. 601 Pliny the Younger took care of Thrasea’s wife and daughter after his death.602 Thrasea’s step-son Helvidius Priscus603 was also an outspoken Stoic senator and at least one scholar thinks that he led Thrasea’s “philosophical band”604 after his execution. Demetrius of Corinth was criticized by Dio Cassius: w(j d' ou}n kai a1lloi polloi e0k tw~n stwikw~n kaloume/nwn lo&gwn proaxqe/ntej, meq' w{n kai Dhmh&trioj o( kuniko&j, suxna_ kai ou)k e0pith&deia toi=j parou~si dhmosi/a , tw ~ th~j filosofi/aj prosxh&mati kataxrw&menoi, diele/gonto, ka)k tou&tou kai u(podie/fqeiro&n tinaj, e1peisen o( Minoukiano_j to_n Ou)espasiano_n pa&ntaj tou_j toiou&touj e0k th~j po&lewj e0kbalei=n, ei0pw_n o)rgh ~ ma~llon h2 filologi/a tini polla_ kat' au)tw~n. Inasmuch as many others, too, including Demetrius the Cynic, actuated by the Stoic principles, were taking advantage of the name of philosophy to teach publicly many doctrines inappropriate to the times, and in this way were subtly corrupting some of 600
Dio Cass. 61c.15.3-4
601
Dio Cass. 62.26.3.
602
Plin. Ep. 3.11.3; A. N. Sherwin-White. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 243. 603
On Helvidius Priscus, C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 148; P. A. Brunt, “Stoicism and the Principate,” PBSR 43 (1975): 28-31; G. E. R. Chilver and G. B. Townend, An Historical Commentary on Tacitus Histories IV and V (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1985), 6-8. 604
Tacitus, Hist. 4.5, Dial. 5; Suet. Vesp. 15; Plin. Ep. 7. 19 (eulogy for his wife). Epict. Disc. 1.2. J. Malitz, “Helvidius Priscus und Vespasian,” Hermes 113 (1985), 231246.
191 their hearers, Mucianus, prompted rather by anger than by any passion for philosophy, inveighed at length against them and persuaded Vespasian to expel all such persons from the city….605 kai pa&ntaj au)ti/ka tou_j filoso&fouj o( Ou)espasiano&j, plh_n tou~ Mouswni/ou, e0k th~j 9Rw&mhj e0ce/bale, to_n de dh_ Dhmh&trion kai to_n 0Ostiliano_n kai e0j nh&souj kate/kleise. kai o( men 0Osti/lioj ei0 kai ta_ ma&lista mh_ e0pau&sato peri th~j fugh~j a)kou&saj (e1tuxe ga_r dialego&meno&j tini) a)lla_ kai pollw ~ plei/w kata_ th~j monarxi/aj kate/dramen, o3mwj paraxrh~ma mete/sth: tw ~ de Dhmhtri/w mhd' w4j u(pei/konti e0ke/leusen o( Ou)espasiano_j lexqh~nai o3ti “su_ men pa&nta poiei=j i3na se a)poktei/nw, e0gw_ de ku&na u(laktou~nta ou) foneu&w.” And Vespasian immediately expelled from Rome all the philosophers except Musonius; Demetrius and Hostilianus he even deported to islands. Hostilianus, though he decidedly would not desist when he was told about the sentence of exile (he happened to be conversing with somebody), but merely inveighed all the more strongly against monarchy, nevertheless straightway withdrew. Demetrius, on the contrary, would not yield even then, and Vespasian commanded that this message should be given to him: “You are doing everything to force me to kill you, but I do not slay a barking dog.”606 Philostratus says that Pancrates the Cynic taught philosophy at the Isthmus in the early second century.607 Nothing is known about Pancrates other than he lived in Athens for a while and escaped stoning by stunning the crowd with the saying, “Lollianus does not sell bread but words.”608 Stoicism was well represented in Corinth. At least one tradition indicates that the Megarian philosopher, Thrasymachus of Corinth (fl. 4th BCE), taught Stilpo (c. 360-c.
605
Dio Cass. 66.13.
606
Dio Cass. Xiphilini Epitome S208 line 3.
607
Philostr. VS 1.23.
608
R. Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 400.
192 280 BC) who taught Zeno of Citium (334 BC - 262 BC), the founder of Stoicism. 609 The destruction of Corinth and the subsequent rise in value of Corinthian bronze became proverbial in the writings of Cicero, Servius Sulpicius Rufus (106-43 BCE), and Seneca. Cicero gives a testimony concerning his visit in 77 BCE before the city was rebuilt, “at Corinth the sudden sight of the ruins had more effect on me that upon the actual inhabitants, for long contemplation had the hardening effect of length of time upon their souls.”610 Several years later, Servius Sulpicius wrote to Cicero, “As I sailed across, I began to look at the places roundabout; behind me was Aegina, before me Megara, on the right Piraeus, on the left Corinth: they were once flourishing towns, now they lie in ruins, flattened (45 BCE).”611 Seneca uses the following metaphor, “Therefore, let just as many books be acquired as are enough, but not for mere show. ‘It is more respectable,’ you say, ‘to squander money on these than on Corinthian bronzes and on pictures.’”612 The well-known Stoic Musonius Rufus (25-101 CE) was exiled to the island of Gyaros by Nero in 65 CE, and according to Philostratus he was sent to work along with the aforementioned Demetrius the Cynic on the canal of the Isthmus of Corinth two years
609
Diog. Laert. 2.113 (Life of Stilpo 1.1).
610
Cic. Tusc. 3.53. He says elsewhere that the city was completely razed because the Romans feared that the people would one day recover from their defeat, Off. 1.9.35. 611
Cic. Fam. 4.5.4. Elizabeth R. Gebhard and Matthew W. Dickie argue that the descriptions of Cicero and Servius should not be taken as eye-witness accounts, “The View from the Isthmus, ca. 200 to 44 B.C.,” Corinth 20, Corinth, The Centenary: 18961996 (2003): 263. 612
Sen. Tran. 9.5. Cf., On the Shortness of Life, 12.2. In Polyb. 1.1, Seneca argues that it is folly to mourn over the loss of cities when the entire universe will eventually perish.
193 later.613 Arrian addresses the discourses of Epictetus to the Corinthian aristocrat Lucius Gellius Menander.614 The Stoic / eclectic philosopher and orator Dio Chrysostom (40-120 CE) gives us a view of philosophical debates among the pandemonium of the crowds during the Isthmian Games. 615 kai dh_ kai to&te h}n peri to_n new_n tou~ Poseidw~noj a)kou&ein pollw~n men sofistw~n kakodaimo&nwn bow&ntwn kai loidoroume/nwn a)llh&loij, kai tw~n legome/nwn maqhtw~n a1llou a1llw maxome/nwn, pollw~n de suggrafe/wn a)nagignwsko&ntwn a)nai/sqhta suggra&mmata, pollw~n de poihtw~n poih&mata a )do&ntwn, kai tou&touj e0painou&ntwn e9te/rwn, pollw~n de qaumatopoiw~n qau&mata e0pideiknu&ntwn, pollw~n de teratosko&pwn te/rata krino&ntwn, muri/wn de r(hto&rwn di/kaj strefo&ntwn, ou)k o)li/gwn de kaph&lwn diakaphleuo&ntwn o3,ti tu&xoien e3kastoj. eu)qu_j ou}n kai au)tw ~ tinej prosh~lqon, tw~n men Korinqi/wn ou)dei/j: ou)de ga_r w 1onto ou)den w)felhqh&sesqai, o3ti kaq’ h(me/ran e9w&rwn au)to_n e0n Kori/nqw : tw~n de ce/nwn h}san oi9 prosio&ntej
613
Apollon. v. 19, p. 178. Charles Pomeroy Parker, “Musonius the Etruscan,” HSCP 7 (1896): 123-137. For Musonius at the Isthmus: Philostratus and Pseudo-Lucian, Nero; Tim Whitmarsh, “Greek and Roman in Dialogue: The Pseudo-Lucianic Nero,” JHS 119 (1999): 142-160. For exile, see M. V. Braginton, “Exile under the Roman Emperors,” CJ 39, no. 7 (1944): 391-407. 614
Kent, Inscriptions, no. 124, page 55-6 is an inscription honoring Arrian by the Gelli family. Cf., James H. Oliver, ‘Arrian and the Gellii of Corinth,’ GRBS 11 (1970): 335-7. 615
The earlier Greek philosophers appeared at many pan-Hellenic games. The Olympic games were especially important: Pythagoras revealed his golden thigh at the Olympic games (Ael. Hist. 2.21), Plato won some disciples in Olympia (Ael. Hist. 4.9), Empedocles recruited disciples there, Gorgias was often invited to speak at the Olympic games, and Ion (at Isthmia, Plut. Mor. 79d), Antisthenes gave an oration at Isthmia (Diog. Laert. 6.1), Lysias gave an Olympic oration (Plut. Mor. 836d), Isocrates gave a lecture there (Isoc. 4), Hippias (Pl. Hip. mai. 363c) frequented the games to engage in philosophical debate. Håkan Tell examines the role of intellectual pursuits at the games in “Sages at the Games: Intellectual Displays and Dissemination of Wisdom in Ancient Greece,” Cl Ant 26, no. 2 (2007): 249–52; W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists (Cambridge: - Victoria Jennings, The World of Ion of Chios
194 So, when the time for the Isthmian games had arrived, and everybody was at the Isthmus… That was the time when one could hear Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them… Naturally a crowd gathered around him immediately. No Corinthians, however, for they did not think it would at all be worth their while, since they were accustomed to see him every day at Corinth. The crowd that gathered around him were strangers.616 This speech claims to describe the nature of the attendance of Diogenes the Cynic (c. 420-323 BCE) at the games, but Chrysostom most likely describes his experience in the first century because it compliments monuments and other artifacts found in the area of that time. 617 Bruce Winter argues that Dio chose the figure of Diogenes to criticize the sophists of his time because Diogenes was a volatile character that made a good platform for criticism. Winter suggests that the speech describes Dio’s attendance at the games during a visit to Corinth during his exile in 89-96 CE.618 Dio Chrysostom provides one of the many contexts in which philosophically educated women would participate in discourse with other philosophers. In the context of the games, there was public discourse – and we know that women were present because they competed in and supported the games. Cicero and his friends preferred to stay indoors to have philosophical discussions during the Pythian games, and that also seems to be the case with Plutarch. Plutarch visited Corinth at the time of the Isthmian games and participated in a philosophical discourse with other learned guests. Apparently, Plutarch and his 616
Dio Chrys. Or. 8.7.9.
617
Oscar Broneer, “The Apostle Paul,” 18; see also Murphy-O’Conner, Corinth,
618
Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 32.
97.
195 associates preferred to gather with fellow intellectuals rather than celebrate the celebrate feasts hosted by Sospis: 0Isqmi/wn a)gome/nwn e0n th ~ deute/ra tw~n Sw&spidoj a)gwnoqesiw~n ta_j men a1llaj e9stia&seij diefu&gomen, e9stiw~ntoj au)tou~ pollou_j men a3ma ce/nouj pa&ntaj de polla&kij tou_j poli/taj: a3pac de tou_j ma&lista fi/louj kai filolo&gouj oi1koi dexome/nou kai au)toi parh~men. a)phrme/nwn de tw~n prw&twn trapezw~n h{ke/n tij 9 H r w & d h tw ~ r(h&tori para_ gnwri/mou nenikhko&toj e0gkwmi/w foi/nika kai ste/fano&n tina tw~n plektw~n komi/zwn. The Isthmian games being celebrated, when Sospis was the second time director of the solemnity, we avoided other entertainments,—he treating a great many strangers and often all his fellow-citizens,—but once, when he entertained his nearest and most learned friends at his own house, I was one of the company. After the first course, one coming to Herodes the rhetorician brought a palm and a wreathed crown, which one of his acquaintance, who had won the prize for an encomiastic exercise, sent him. 619 Borimir Jordan provides several references for gatherings like this one at Isthmia. 620 Cicero (106-43 BCE) and his friends chose to gather outside of Rome for philosophical discussion during the games. 621 Pliny the Younger (c. 61-112 CE) was delighted when Tacitus (56-117 BCE) was mistaken for him by a Roman knight during a conversation at the Circensian games.622 Reflecting later the same well-established traditions of philosophical discourse at the games, other sophists who were attracted to the panHellenic games in the second century include: Polemo (90-144 CE, Olympic, patron was Herodes Atticus and he interacted with Favorinus, Philostratus 538, 442, 491), Herodes
619
Plut. Mor. 723a.
620
Borimir Jordan provides several references for earlier gatherings like this at Isthmia, “Isthmian Amusements,” Classics Ireland 8, (2001): 32-67; Pind. Pyth. 4.294; Nem. 9.48; Isthm. 6.1 and Scholium on Ol. 10.55; Dem. 19.195. 621
Cic. Orat. 7.
622
Plin. Ep. 104.
196 Atticus (101-177 CE, Olympia, Philostratus 557), Herodes’s father (fl. late 2nd BCE, Olympia, Philostr. V S 1.25, 539) and Antipater of Hierapolis (fl. 200 CE, Olympic and Panathenaic, Philostr. V S 24.1). The games were attractive to many intellectuals and philosophers because they served as a platform for orations and debate. Robert Weir finds in the inscriptions at Delphi two second century CE intellectuals who travelled to the Pythian games: P. Cornelius Lupus of Nikopolis (c. 95-100 CE) and Isocrates of Athens (c. 80-90 CE).623 Favorinus was important philosopher with close ties to Corinth. A distinguished student of Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-120 CE), Favorinus (ca. 80-150 CE)624 authored some discourses which are preserved under his master’s name. 625 Favorinus,626 an Academic philosopher, was also a pupil and friend of Plutarch and a teacher of Herodes Atticus,
623
Robert G. A. Weir, Roman Delphi and its Pythian Games, BAR International Series 1306 (Oxford: Hadrian Books, 2004), 115. P. Cornelius Lupus = FD 3.4.114, 115; Isocrates = FD 3.2.98; cf., Minos Kokolakis, “Intellectual Activity at the Fringes of the Games,” in Proceedings on an International Symposium on the Olympic Games: 5-9 of September, 1988, ed. William Coulson and Helmut Kyrieleis (Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen, 1992), 153-8. 624
Cf., Winter, Paul among the Sopists, 128.
625
In Disc. 37, Favorinus addresses the Corinthians concerning a statue of him that was placed in their library. Bruce Winter, ‘Favorinus,’ in The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster, 1993), 196-205; M. W. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 3-20. Håkan Tell examines the role of intellectual pursuits at the games in “Sages at the Games,” 249–52; cf., Guthrie, Sophists, 44-5. 626
Anna Maria Ioppolo, “The Academic Position of Favorinus of Arelate,” Phronesis 38, no. 2 (1993): 183-213. For an ancient biography of Favorinus, see Philostr. V S 1.8.
197 who was a notable patron in Corinth.627 Herodes Atticus himself had a notable student, Sceptus of Corinth (fl. 2nd CE).628 Favorinus has a part in Plutarch’s Table Talk, which includes a lengthy discussion on love. Philostratus (c. 170-247 CE) tells us that a statue of Favorinus (c. 80-160 CE) was placed in the public library of Corinth to encourage the youth to imitate his eloquence.629 Some scholars believe that when Favorinus agitated Hadrian, the Corinthians removed the statue.630 Simon Swain believes that, on the basis of Favorinus’s Corinthian Oration (32-35), that the Corinthians pulled down the statue because of a rumor that he had committed adultery.631 A word on the library at Corinth, where a statue of Favorinus (c. 80-160 CE) was erected, would be helpful because it may well have been a source of education in Corinth, perhaps for some in the Pauline community. The concept of “public libraries” was developed in the first century BCE. The sources are inconclusive as to who exactly had access to “public libraries.” Certainly the wealthy had easier access to these books, but
627
Paus. 1.7; J. L. Moles, “The Career and Conversion of Dio Chrysostom,” JHS 98 (1978): 79-100; H.C. Rutledge, “Herodes the Great: Citizen of the World,” CJ 56, no. 3 (1960): 97-109. 628
Philostr. V S 573, 585.
629
Philostr. V S 1.8. [remember ‘philosophers who were skilled at rhetoric’]. Saul S. Weinberg, Corinth: The Southeast Building, the Twin Basilicas, The Mosaic House, ASCSA 1.5 (Princeton, NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1960), 11-12 (28). 630
Bruce Winter, “The Toppling of Favorinus and Paul,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, & L. Michael White (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 291-306. 631
Simon Swain, “Favorinus and Hadrian,” ZPE 79, (1989), 154.
198 libraries were often attached to very public points such as baths and porticos, suggesting a slightly larger readership than wealthly book collectors.632 In any case, literary patronage experienced a shift from private – patrons lending books to wealthy friends or clients - to patrons constructing libraries for a wider audience. Favorinus’s (c. 80-160 CE) learning was praised by Demetrius the Cynic (fl. 1st CE), Cornelius Fronto (c. 100-170 CE), Cassius Dio (c. 155-229 CE; 69.3.6), and Aulus Gellius (125-180 CE; 2.12.15, 16.1.3). Galen (c. 129-217 CE) wrote two lost treatises against Favorinus: To Favorinus on the Best Teaching and To Favorinus, Concerning Epictetus.633 In his oration on Fortune, Favorinus alludes to many educated women: h1dh de/ tina kai tw~n i0di/wn paqw~n th ~ tu&xh profe/rousin, h( Mh&deia to_n e1rwta, o( Mi/daj th_n eu)xh&n, h( Fai/drath_n diabolh&n, o( 0Alkmai/wn, o3ti e0plana~to, o( 0Ore/sthj, o3ti e0mai/neto. e0rw~ de u(mi=n tina kai Ku&prion lo&gon, ei0 bou&lesqe. neto. e0rw~ de u(mi=n tina kai Ku&prion lo&gon, ei0 bou&lesqe. h1negken o( palaio_j bi/oj kai e0ndo&coujgunai=kaj, 9Rodogou&nhn polemikh&n, Semi/ramin basilikh&n, Sapfw_ mousikh&n, Tima&ndran kalh&n: ou3tw kai e0n Ku&prw Dhmw&nassa e0ge/neto, politikh& te o(mou~ gunh_ kai nomoqetikh&. trei=j e1qhken au3th toi=j Kupri/oij no&mouj: th_n moixeuqei=san keirame/nhn porneu&esqai: quga&thr au)th~j e0moixeu&qh kai th_n ko&mhn a)pekei/rato kata_ to_n no&mon kai e0porneu&eto. to_n au(to_n a)poktei/nanta a1tafon r( i/ptesqai: deu&teroj ou{toj Dhmwna&sshj no&moj: tri/toj w3ste mh_ a)poktei=nai bou~n a)ro&trion. duoi=n de au)th ~ pai/dwn a)rre/nwn o1ntwn, o( men e0pi tw ~ bou~n a)poktei=nai a)pe/qane: Furthermore, men even reproach Fortune for some of their own emotional weaknesses — Medea for her passion, Midas for his prayer, Phaedra for her false accusation, Alcmaeon for his wandering, Orestes for his madness. But I will tell you also a certain Cyprian tale if you wish. The days of old produced women of distinction as well as men — Rhodogunê the warrior, Semiramis the queen, Sappho the poetess, Timandra the beauty; just so Cyprus too had its Demonassa, a woman gifted in both statesmanship and law-giving. She gave the people of Cyprus the 632
T. Keith Dix, “‛Public Libraries in Ancient Rome: Ideology and Reality, Libraries & Culture 29, no. 3 (1994): 290; Anthony J. Marshall, “Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome,” Phoenix 30, no. 3 (1976):261-2. My sources do not permit me to speculate on the nature of the literacy of readers in public libraries. 633
Anna Maria Ioppolo, “Favorinus,” 183-213.
199 following three laws: a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off and be a harlot — her daughter became an adulteress, had her hair cut off according to the law, and practised harlotry; whoever commits suicide shall be cast out without a burial — this was the second law of Demonassa; third, a law forbidding the slaughter of a plough-ox. 634 Some scholars believe that Favorinus is not simply mentioning Sappho but that her poetry influenced him. 635 Sometime in the first century, the Corinthians honored another rhetor with a statue with the inscription: “By decree of the city council, Corinth the mother city (set up this monument in honor of) Peducaeus Cestianus the Apollonian orator.”636 There may be some memory of (neo-)Pythagoreans in Corinth preserved in a biographer of Phythagoras. Iamblichus (c. 245-325 CE) tells us of the remarkable
634
Dio Chrys. 64.2; Ael. VH 5.14: “This also was observed by them ; A ploughing Oxe, that laboureth under the yoak, either with Plough or Cart, sacrifice not. For he also is a Tiller of the earth, and partakes with men of their labour.” 635
J. M. Edmonds, “Sappho’s Book as Depicted on an Attic Vase,” CQ 16
(1922): 5. 636
Kent, Inscriptions, no 269 = Pl. 23. Inv. 1205. As with many other professions, students destined for a career in oratory would undergo an apprentinceship with a successful orator before entering the profession, or of course learn from their father. On Roman orators, see Cecil W. Wooten, ed., The Orator in Action and Theory in Greece and Rome: Essays in Honor of G. A. Kennedy (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Robert Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Catherine E. W. Steel, Roman Oratory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Classical Association, 2006); D. H. Berry and Andrew Erskine, Form and Function in Roman Oratory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); for rhetorical exercises in Roman education, see W. Martin Bloomer, “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education,” CA 16, no. 1 (1997): 57-78.
200 friendship that the Pythagoreans Phintias and Damon practiced in Corinth (4 th BCE).637 Iamblichus also lists Chrysippus of Corinth as a notable Pythagorean.638 There is no direct evidence for contact between Epicureanism and Corinth, but the inscriptions of Diogenes of Oneoanda – which includes the Letter to Mother (see above chapter 3) – were installed just 50 miles north of the city in the second century CE. There must have been an Epicurean community in Oneoanda, and it is not unreasonable to assume that members of that community travelled to Corinth for the Isthmian games, to visit friends, or conduct business. C. W. Chilton, in the introduction to his translation of the Oneoanda fragments, writes, “one cannot doubt that there were Epicurean communities in many of these towns, communities which Paul might well have hoped to convert.”639 The work of Norman DeWitt must be addressed due to its wide usage in older scholarship. DeWitt argues that Paul specifically addresses Epicureans in Corinth.640 DeWitt begins his analysis with the assumption that as Paul made himself a Greek to the Greeks, so he must have made himself an Epicurean to the Epicureans.641 From such a
637
Iambl. VP 33.3. Iamblichus attributes the story to Aristoxenus (b. 370 BCE), Porphyry (VP 59-61) attributes it to Nichomachus. It was known to Cicero, Cic. Off. 3.45; Tusc. Disp. 5.22. Cicero and Diodorus Siculus place the time of the event at the time of Dionysius the Elder in Syracuse, 405-367 BCE. Iamblichus places the event in the time of Dionysius the Younger in Corinth, LCL, Oldfather, 59 n. 8. 638
VP 36.267. Unfortunately, Iamblichus gives no indication of date.
639
C. W. Chilton, Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Fragments. A Translation and Commentary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), xxiv. 640
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 113.
641
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 106.
201 starting point, there is nowhere to go but deeper into Epicureanism with nothing to temper one’s gaze. DeWitt argues that there was no competition from Platonists or Stoics, so the only popular philosophy that the Corinthian church would be exposed to is Epicureanism: The other Greek philosophies were offering no competition. Platonism was always for the intellectual few. Neither were the followers of Aristotle numerous and their interest was less in human beings than in plants and animals. Stoicism with its high pretentions attracted the “silk cushion” class and disqualified itself for the multitude by its asperity.642 DeWitt’s analysis, his assumption notwithstanding, is a good starting place inasmuch as he argues that Paul is using Greco-Roman rhetoric and parts of philosophy to argue against rhetoric/philosophy. However, DeWitt’s argument concerning the pervasive influence of Epicureanism on Paul is overstated in the extreme. Without support, he argues that Paul was an Epicurean early in life and whatever Paul writes that is not Epicurean, he does so as an ex-Epicurean.643 DeWitt also assumes that Paul’s audience was literate and of higher status.644 DeWitt has made several contributions to identifying Epicurean elements and parallels in Paul, but his conclusion related to the significance of these parallels do not recognize the eclectic nature of Paul’s use of philosophy. The best research concerning Paul and Epicureanism is the work on Philodemus edited and written by David Konstan. This work focuses on friendship and will be discussed as needed in chapters 5-7 when Paul uses or addresses elements of
642
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 106.
643
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 177.
644
DeWitt, Paul and Epicurus, 168-9.
202 friendship that would be relevant to a philosophically educated woman with Epicurean sympathies.645 Corinth produced many philsophers, beginning with the legacy of Diogenes the Cynic (c. 412-323 BCE). Other Cynics include Monimus (fl. 4th BCE), Metrocles (fl. 325 BCE), and Demetrius (fl. 1st CE). The Neo-Pythagorean Iamblichus (c. 245-325 CE) remembers three Pythagoreans from Corinth: Phintias (4th BCE), Damon (4th BCE), and Chrysippus (date unknown). Representing Epicureanism, fifty miles north of Corinth, the wealthy parton Diogenes of Oneoanda (fl. 2nd CE) erected a huge monument to his beloved philosophy, possibly demonstrating that there was an Epicurean community there. The great orator and Skeptic philospher Favorinus (ca. 80-150 CE) was honored with a statue in the Corinthian library, only to have it torn down for political reasons, and possibly restored after a subsequent oration. Favorinus (ca. 80-150 CE) taught the notable Corinthian patron Herodes Atticus (101-177 CE) who himself had a well-known student, Sceptus of Corinth (fl. 2nd CE). Some affection for Stoicism was alive in Corinth, because it was to the Corinthian patron Lucius Gellius Menander that Arrian addressed the works of Epictetus. There is also a legend that Musonius Rufus helped build the Isthmus of Corinth while in exile. The Isthmian games attacted philosophers and other intellectuals to Corinth for discussion and debate. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-120 CE) describes an incident in the life of Diogenes the Cynic (c. 412-323 BCE) where intellectuals gathered for debate, but this oration seems to more accurately describe a first century situation. Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) also relates a debate at the Isthmian games during the first century, but the setting of 645
Konstan, Philodemus; Konstan, Friendship.
203 his account is a home. A few other records of philosophers attending other Pan-Hellenic games also survive in Cicero (106-43 BCE, Cic. Orat. 7) and Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE; Plin. Ep. 104.), and in epigraphical evidence.646 These traditions are important because most of these philosophical schools have women who are associated with their founding: Theano the Pythagorean; Arete the Cyrenaic; Lasthenia, Diotima, and Aspasia the teachers of Socrates; Hipparchia the Cynic; and Leontion the Epicurean. The tradition of philosophically educated women continues in the Roman period, and it expands to other schools: the female students of the the first century Stoics Porcia, Arria and her daughter, and Fannia, Julia Domna (170-217 CE) the scholar, and neo-Platonist Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE). The tradition of women’s involvement in Pythagoreanism continues into the Roman period with the Pythagorean pseudepigraphal works which are attributed to the famous Pythagorean women including: Theano, Perictione (in this case, the name of Plato’s mother), and Myia. Crowning this list are the philosophically educated women who are celebrated in Paul’s near contemporaries Tullia and Caerellia (Cicero), Marcia and Helvia (Seneca), Eurydice (Plutarch), and Pliny the Younger (Calpurnia). In light of the philosophical heritage of Corinth and the long traditions of philosophically educated women in the schools represented there, the possibility that there were such women in the community of Christ believers is quite strong. I will argue in the next section that the various contexts of 1 Corinthians indicate the presence of philosophically educated women.
646
Weir, Roman Delphi, 115.
204 Philosophically Educated Women in the Corinthian Church For the purposes of this dissertation, a philosophically educated woman is a woman who has come into contact with enough philosophical teaching from any school to identify and interact with components of 1 Corinthians which have points of connection with Greco-Roman philosophy. In chapter two, we saw that some women throughout the Greek and Roman periods received the full compliment of ancient education including poetry, medicine, athletics, dance, music, and literacy. In chapter three, I reviewed the histories of women in philosophy. Women were instrumental in the founding of most major schools of philosophy including Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism. Women were involved in these schools until the first century and beyond. In the first half of chapter four, I have shown that all of these schools have a long history in Corinth. Several themes develop when we look at the histories of the education of women in general and philosophical education in particular. It is critical to remember that the ancient wealthy household provides the central conduit for philosophical education. This does not mean that all philosophers were wealthy. It means that most of the traditions indicate that philosophically educated women were taught by their wealthy fathers or husbands. Wealthy people also brought philosophers into their houses to tutor their children and entertain their wealthy guests at dinner parties. These tutors may have been slaves or freedpersons themselves and could have taught slaves in the household who might later be freed. Other philosophers, such many Cynics and some Stoics, chose to live in poverty and taught their wives and daughters to do the same. Therefore, it makes sense to examine 1 Corinthians for women who share similar circumstances. In this section, I will argue that the social structures of the Corinthian
205 church compliments the historical contexts in which philosophically educated women thrived. Paul’s primary focus of address is churches that meet in households which included a diverse cross-section of people. 647 Because education is centered on wealthy households in most philosophical traditions (Platonism, Epicureanism, and [neo-] Pythagoreanism) I will examine the women of 1 Corinthians looking for signs of wealthy households and corresponding philosophical content. The best place to start are the persons whom we know were participants in the Corninthian community. Some notes on the relationship between 1 Corinthians and Romans are necessary before we begin. Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans from Corinth,648 and concludes the letter with greetings from several Corinthians, some of whom may indicate the presence of philosophically educated women in the community of Jesus believers there. These names include Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, and Quartus. The entire chapter of Romans 16 is a lettter of recommendation for Phoebe, who is generally considered to be the courier, reader, and theological interpreter of the epistle to the Romans.649 Aquila and Priscilla, who apparently were in Rome at the time of the delivery of the epistle, also worked with Paul in Corinth.650 647
Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 69-120, 145-74; Meeks, Urban Christians,75-77. 648
Based on Romans 16:1, Phoebe of Cenchrae brought the letter from Corinth to Rome. Peter Stuhlmacher and Scott J. Hafemann, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 246; Byrne Brendan, Romans, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996); Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyat, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 7. 649
A detailed discussion of Phoebe will follow.
650
Aquila and Priscilla will be discussed in detail below.
206 In addition to the epistle to the Romans, some members of the Corinthian community are mentioned in Acts. This of course presents other challenges related to the questionable historicity of Acts. 651 The description of Paul’s activity in Corinth in Acts 18 includes Titus Justus,652 Crispus, Sosthenes, and Priscilla and Aquila. Because the historicity of Acts is dubious,653 I will approach its information tentatively and argue that it may indicate something about the community at Corinth. The only information relevant to this dissertation that is unique to Acts is the question of the office of synagogue leader held by Crispus and Sosthenes, and I will therefore argue that this information could point to wealthy households in the Corinthian community. All other information concerning Corinthians will be gleaned from 1 Corinthians and Romans. The remainder of this chaper will comprise a review of the names mentioned in 1 Corinthians and the relevant people mentioned in Romans and Acts, with the purpose of looking for indications of wealth and household contexts that signify the possibility of philosophically educated women in the Corinthian community of Jesus believers.
651
For historicity of Acts, see A. J. Mattill, Jr. “The Value of Acts as a Source for the Study of Paul,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert (Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 76–98. 652
I will dismiss from the outset all persons named that have no corresponding information. 653
For bibliography see Thomas E. Phillip, Acts within Diverse Frames of Reference (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 46-77; cf., Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu, NovTSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 197218; Joseph B. Tyson, “From History to Rhetoric and Back: Assessing New Trends in Acts Studies,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative in Greco-Roman Discourse, ed. Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 23-42; Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, WUNT 2.175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).
207 A Corinthian Christian in Public Office: Erastus In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul indicates that there were some unspecified Christ believers who were educated, wealthy, and of noble birth (1 Cor. 2629).654 Interpretations of 1 Cor. 1:26-9 have led several scholars to conclude that the Christian community at Corinth was socially stratified, with most of the people being of low social status and some being of a higher social status.655 Andrew Clarke nicely characterizes this interpetation: It is clear from the verse in question, Ble/pete ga_r th_n klh~sin u(mw~n, a)delfoi/, o3ti ou) polloi sofoi kata_ sa&rka, ou) polloi dunatoi/, ou) polloi eu)genei=j, that these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Paul’s statement that there are not many wise in human terms, not many powerful and not many of noble birth demonstrates that there were, at the least, some who fitted these categories; equally, however, there were some who could not be classified as wise, influential, or wellborn. The Corinthian church, it seems clear, contained a social mix. 656 Several aspects of 1 Corinthians, which will be discussed in later sections of this dissertation, confirm this social mix in a general sense: Paul’s affirmation that there were a few wealthy participants in the community (1 Cor. 1:26-8), the household context of worship in the form of love feasts, the invitation of Christ believers to eat with outsiders, and participation in courts. Erastus is generally considered to be a weathy patron of the church, but there are several problems with the identification of his social status.
654
There is an extensive bibliography on the exegetical and theological problems posed by 1 Cor. 1:26-9 in Thiselton, Corinthians, 176-8. 655
Judge, Social Pattern, 59; C. D. F. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, Harper & Row, 1962); Gerd Thessien, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); Meeks, First Urban Christians, 191-2; Winter, Philo and Paul, 189; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 23-4. 656
Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 42.
208 Erastus (Acts 19.22; Rom. 16:23657) deserves some discussion because he is the only person mentioned in the Corinthian community who is explicitly identified as holding a public office: oi0kono/moj th=j po/lewj (city treasurer). If Erastus moved up the social ladder by serving in higher offices throughout his career, he may have been from a wealthy family and able to support the church as a patron. His household would, then, be a leading location for educated and philosophical discourse and the likely presence of philosophically educated women. The difficulty, though, is a lack of certain information about Erastus. There are few clues about Erastus’s position in early Christian writers. Origen (CER 5:278)658 simply references the office of Erastus with no explanation. However, John Chrysostom expresses his opinion clearly: Paul mentions the Erastus’s title with the purpose that the Gospel had taken hold of the great as well as among the rest of the population.659 For many scholars, Chrysostom’s opinion was substantiated on April 15, 1929, when an inscription was discovered in Corinth indicating that an Erastus served as aedile: praenomen nomen ERASTVS · PRO · AEDILITaeE vac S · P · STRAVIT vac [praenomen nomen] Erastus pro aedilit[at]e s (ua) p(ecunia) stravit “[- - - - -] Erastus in return for his aedileship laid the pavement at his own expense. 660 657
Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 224. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 153-162. 658
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
659
Homilies on Romans 32; NPNF 1 11:561.
660
Kent, Inscriptions, 232.
209
Many have concluded that the Erastus of Romans 16:23 is the Erastus of the inscription since the name does not appear anywhere else in the Corinthian inscriptions, the pavement can be dated sometime in the first-second century, and Paul’s designation of Erastus as oi0kono/moj may describe the office of aedile.661 The identification of Erastus the oi0kono/moj and Erastus the aedile is not without its challenges. Several objections have been raised as to the rarity of Erastus’s name, the date of the inscription, and the relationship between aedile and oi0kono/moj. The name Erastus is not exceptionally rare as some have claimed. It is common enough in inscriptions, close to the date of the Erastus inscription, and over a wide geographical area.662 Andrew Clarke has noted that there is another inscription in Corinth, found in 1960, dated in the second century CE: [Oi/] Bite/llioi [Fro]ntei=noj [kai/ · 1E]rastoj [tw= ?· - -] [ - - -]i [The] Vitellii [Fro]ntinus [and E]rastus (dedicate this) [to] – 661
Kent, Inscriptions, 99-100; Bruce Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christains as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 191-2; John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, JSNT 75 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 82-3; Meeks, The First Urban Christans, 58-9. 662
Clarke and Gill have found the following examples: SEG 11, 622 (Laconia) and 994 (Messenia); SEG 24, 194 (Attica): SEG 25, 194 (Attica); SEG 28, 1010 (Bithynia); CIG 269; 1241 (Sparta); 1249 (Sparta); 6378; Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical l and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (New York: Brill, 1993), 54.
210 [ - - -]663 The two Erastus inscriptions in Corinth do indicate men who were unquestionably wealthy. And of course we know that the inscriptions belong to two different men, chiefly because the second inscription is dated about 100 years later than the aedile inscription. But the relative commonality of the name of Erastus precludes a ready identification with the Erastus of Romans 16:23. Then, there is the challenge of determining a connection between oi0kono/moj and aedile. Several attempts have been made to make such a connection, but these attempts have been convincingly rejected. First, the Greek term oi0kono/moj is not the usual term for the Latin aedile, probably because the former is a much lower status position than the latter.664 The position of oi0kono/moj was typically held by a slave or lowly freeman and not a wealthy freedman or citizen.665 Erastus could have held the office at the beginning of his public career, and moved on to higher and more decorated positions,666 but the distance between the two offices in the city hierarchy is so great that it seems unlikely. Kent suggests that Paul may have referred to Erastus as oi0kono/moj instead of a0gorano/moj because the aedile in Corinth oversaw local economic affairs.667 The
663
Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 55; cf., Andrew Clarke, “Another Erasrtus Inscription,” TynB 42 (1991): 146-51. 664
H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions - A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974), 11. 665
Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977), 31. 666
David W. J. Gill, “Erastus,” TynB 40, no. 2 (1989): 293-301.
667
Kent, “The Inscriptions, 1926-1950,” iii-vi+1-258.
211 argument of Kent has been very influencial among scholars who have come to similar conclusions. The wealth of Erastus is uncertain because of the low position of oi0kono/moj, and the identification of the Erastus in Romans with the Erastus inscription is tentative at best. In this case, Erastus would have been one of the many Christ believers who were low-born, uneducated, and not influential. After considering the weak archaeologial evidence concerning the Erastus inscription and a detailed exegesis, Steven Freisen argues that Erastus was not even a believer based on Paul’s deliberate refusal to identify him as such in Romans 16.668 It has been very attractive for scholars to use Erastus the oi0kono/moj as a starting point for identifying social stratification in the Corinthian community. If indeed Paul’s Erastus was a wealthy office-holder in Corinth, he certainly would have been a valuable asset, providing the church with money, a place to meet, a patron for education, and even legal protection. However, the office of oi0kono/moj is simply too low a position for someone of wealth, and it is not possible to connect Paul’s Erastus with the aedile of the inscription. Unfortunately, we cannot look to Erastus as a certain proof of the presence of wealthy Christians in the Corinthian church.
668
Steven J. Freisen, “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis,' in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, ed. Steven J. Freisen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 231-56.
212 Crispus the Corinthian Synagogue Leader Another type of office which would indicate wealth is that of the synagogue leader. There may have been a few synagogue leaders who participated in the Corinthian church. Acts 18:8 preserves the story of the baptism of Crispus, a synagogue669 leader: Kri/spoj de o( a)rxisuna&gwgoj e0pi/steusen tw ~ kuri/w su_n o3lw tw ~ oi1kw au)tou~, kai polloi tw~n Korinqi/wn a)kou&ontej e0pi/steuon kai e0bapti/zonto. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. 670 There are two indicators of wealth in Crispus’s single verse in the NT: his entire household believed and many others believed the Gospel because of his influence. It is widely understood that the role of a)rxisuna&gwgoj probably indicates wealth,671 and Acts indicates that many Corinthians followed Paul after the baptism of Crispus, remembering him as man of some status. The primary role of the a)rxisuna&gwgoj was to fund or raise funds for the building and restoration of synagogues, and sometimes may have been responsible for the
669
For discussion concerning inscriptions regarding a synagogue in Corinth, see Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 162-66. 670 671
Translation from the ESV.
Chow believes that the status of Crispus is “ambiguous,” Patronage and Power, 90. Several other scholars also believe a)rxisuna&gwgoj is an indicator of wealth: Theissen, Social Setting, 75; Meeks, Urban Chistians, 57; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Two Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 390-403; Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 244.
213 reading of the law to the people when they could not bring in someone else to preach or teach.672 Several reviews of epigraphic evidence confirm this assessment.673 If this is the same Crispus as prominently mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:15, he would likely be a wealthy patron of the church. 674 If this is a credible identification, any women in his household would be the likely recipients of a philosophical education. This would include any woman (wife, daughter, female relative, slave, freedperson) interested in philosophy that the head of the household takes an interest in educating. However, the 672
Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-1987), 2:434; Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 28-9. For more recent opinions, see Ross Shepard Kraemer, Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); T. Rajak and D. Noy focus on the patronal nature of the office rather than any kind of spiritual leadersthip, “Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue,” JRS 83 (1993): 75-93; M. H. Williams disagrees with T. Rajak, “The Structure of Roman Jewry Re-considered – Were the Synagogues of Ancient Rome Homogeneous?,” ZPE 104 (1994): 135; L. M. White, ‘Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence,” HTR 90, no. 1 (1997) 23-58; Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 127-131; Tessa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 673
L. I. Levine, “Synagogue Officials: the Evidence from Caesarea and its Implications for Palestine and the Diaspora,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. Holum (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 392–400; L. I. Levine, “Synagogue Leadership: The Case of the Archisynagogue,” in Jews in a GrecoRoman World, ed. M. Goodman (New York: Clarendon University Press, 1998), 195213. L. H. Feldman, Studies in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 577-600. There is a long treatment of it in New Docs 4:213-20; Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds., Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (New York: Brill, 1994), 178. 674
Rajak and Noy found a three year old archisynagogue in the 5th CE in Venosa, Italy. This is evidence that in some cases the archisynagogue was a non-functional title for a wealthy, high status person. Rajak and Noy, “Archisynagogoi,” 87, 90. CIJ 587; JIWE 1.53. Cf., Thomas Wiedemann, “Children and Benefactors in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire,” POLIS. Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antiguedad Clásica 18 (2006): 163-186.
214 best way to approach Crispus is that he is remembered as a synagogue leader in Acts. The value of this memory is not in its direct historicity, but in that the writer of Acts places a wealthy synagogue leader in the Corinthian community. This memory raises the question: were there wealthier members of the Corinthian community that we can examine that are more historically reliable?
Christians in Court: The Affair A very strong indicator of the presence of high status, powerful, wealthly people in the Corinthian church is the activity that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 6.675 There is overwhelming consensus among New Testament scholars that participation in the Roman courts is an indicator of the wealth of at least one of the litigants.676 The court processes
675
J. A. Crook, Roman Life and Law (New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), 78-79; Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1970), 6; Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon, The Art of Ancient Spectacle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999); Leanne E. Bablitz, Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom (New York: Routledge, 2007); Andrew M. Riggsby, Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 50. 676
Chow, Patronage and Power, 124-9; Clarke, Leadership, 74; Alan C. Mitchell, “Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Cor 6:1111,” NTS 39 no 4 (1993): 562-586; Witherington, Conflict and Community,163; Brent Kinman, “Appoint the Despised as Judges! (1 Corinthians 6:4),” TynB 48, no. 2 (1997): 353; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville, MN: Order of St. Benedict, 1999), 235; Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, IVP New Testament Commentary Series 7, ed. Grant R. Osborne (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 93-4; Dutch, The Educated Elite, 33; Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Henry T. Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus and Valerius Maximus V (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 138-9.
215 in Roman Corinth, as throughout the empire, were the privilege of the wealthy. 677 The processes are quite clear and differ according to status,678 but the practice of law in court was almost wholly dictated by wealth and power.679 Women were permitted to plead their case on their own, but typically had a male accompany them or serve as representation, or even sent letters to magistrates.680 The letters sent to magistrates by women include affidavits for divorce (BGU 4.1102, 13 BCE; P.Oxy. 2.281, 20-50 CE) and other complaints (P.Oxy. 54.3770, 334 CE). Valerius Maximus (8.1) tells us the story of Maesia of Sentinum, who successfully defended herself from an unmentioned charge in the first century BCE.681 Valerius also preserves Gaia Afriana whose participation in court as a prosecutor brought about the need for legislators to ban women from such
677
Peter Garnsey, “Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire,” P&P 41 (1968): 3-24; “The legal system dealt mainly with disputes between those of at least some wealth; the more downtrodden members of society had less property to disagree over, and little time to struggle through the system,” Bablitz, Actors and Audience, 74. 678
David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 113-32. 679
John Crook, Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
680
For examples, see Judith Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce, and Widowhood (New York: Routledge, 2002); Antti Arjava, Women and Law in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1996), 245. 681
Anthony J. Marshall, “Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia of Sentinum,” Phoenix 44, no. 1. (1990): 46-59.
216 activity. 682 Slaves and children, of course, could not participate in court as a prosecutor or defence lawyer.683 Since 1 Corinthians 1:26-9 identifies most of the Corinthian believers as of low status and possibly impoverished, few people in Paul’s community at Corinth would have been wealthy enough to risk the loss of what little they had in litigation. Therefore, it was not beneficial for wealthy people to sue the poor because there would be no gain. The Roman “justice” system was designed for the rich and powerful to destroy or severely weaken their comparatively rich and powerful opponents. In order to have a chance at winning, the litigant would need to hire an advocate trained in forensic rhetoric or be educated in this art her/himself. Advocates could gain fortune and status by their ability to capture both the judge and audience and were therefore motivated to represent their clients effectively. It was much more important to be an impressive rhetor than be knowledgeable about the law because a judge can be persuaded by an effective appeal to emotion. Furthermore, the litigant could bribe the judge, 684 hire people to cheer for his advocate at appropriate times, 685 and pay people to testify to his/her good reputation.686 It was customary for defendants to wear mourning attire from the time they are notified of
682
Val. Max. Fact. dict. mem. 8.3; Dig. Just. 3.1.1.5.
683
Z. M. Packman, “Undesirable Company: The Categorisation of Women in Roman Law,” Scholia 3 (1994): 97. 684
Mart. 2.13; Tac. Ann. 1.75.1, 2.34.1; Juv. 13.1-4; Seut. Tib. 33.1, Dom. 8;
685
Pliny, Ep. 2.14.4-8; hired by an advocate, Mart. 2.27, Quint. 11.3.131. Cf., Bablitz, Actors and Audience, 126-32. 686
Quint. 5.10.26.
217 an accusation until the end of the trial.687 Enemies were known to bring up an accusation and then leave town, forcing the defendant to be dishonored for an extensive amount of time.688 In relation to 1 Cor. 6, some scholars have suggested that at least part of the motivation for the injunction against participation in Gentile law courts is the result of legal action that was the direct result of the affair mentioned in chapter 5.689 Another member of the community may have taken advantage of the breakup of the household to lay claim to property owned by the woman or her step-son that was passed on to them by the death of her husband. 690 The whole situation could indicate that the unnamed woman who had an affair with her step-son was wealthy and therefore be a candidate for philosophical education. 691 Being a widow, she was able to control whatever wealth her
687
Tac. Dial. 12.1; Juv. 15.131-35.
688
Bablitz, Actors, 84-5.
689
P. Richardson, “Judgment on Sexual Matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11,” NovT 25, no. 1 (1983): 37-58; Will Deming, “The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6,” JBL 115, no. 2 (1996), 295-6; cf., Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 247. 690
Collings, Corinthians, 226; cf., Craig Steven de Vos, “Stepmothers, Concubines and the Case of PORNEIA in 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 44, no 1 (1998): 104114; Clarke notes that the motives for the affair may have been financial and rooted in the attraction of a step-mother for her step-son, Secular and Christian Leadership, 80-5. A dowry alone might not be worth enough to tempt a thoughtful litigant, Richard P. Saller, “Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate,” CQ n.s. 34, no. 1 (1984): 199-201; but some dowries were substantial and aristocrats typically payed out the cash in three annual payments, Suzanne Dixon, “Polybius on Roman Women and Property,” AJP 106, no. 2 (1985): 147-170; cf., Jane F. Gardner, “The Recovery of Dowry in Roman Law,” CQ n.s. 35, no. 2 (1985): 449-453. 691
Wire accepts the possibility that the step-mother is a responsible member of the community, but does not explore the nature of the relatonship in detail, Corinthian Women Prophets, 74.
218 late husband left to her, and perhaps initiated the affair with her late husband’s son (being the party of higher status). Such a situation was a part of the elite Greek and Roman psyche.692 This situation would explain why only the son was rebuked by Paul while the widow remained unscathed: she was a powerful patroness that he could not afford to frustrate. It is likely that this woman was a member of the church. Roman households typically shared the religion of the patriarch, so families typically joined the church together (Stephanas in 1 Cor. 1:16 and 16:15, for example). When a person converted to a religion – especially a new foreign one – they could face alienation from their families, unless the entire household converted as well. 693 Marriages between believers and unbelievers were apparently strained: Paul allowed divorce if an unbelieving partner asked for it. The step-son certainly was not alienated from his step-mother, so she must have either been unusually tolerant of her step-son’s refusal to participate in the typical Roman religion or she was a member of the church herself. This also could indicate that Paul did not mention her part in the affair because he did not want to further irritate a patroness of the church. 692
Patricia A. Watson, Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny and Reality, (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 234-8. 693
Apparently some families did tolerate religious dissention – in 1 Cor. 7, Paul instructs believing husbands and wives to remain married to unbelieving partners unless the unbeliever requests divorce. Ancient references for religious ostracization are (1) early Christian persecution in Plin. Ep. 10.96; Tac. Ann. 15.44, and Suet. Nero, 16 (2) Jewish proselytes in Philo, Leg. 4.178; Tac. Hist. 5.5.2 (3) Alienation from families in Justin Martyr, Trypho 2.2-7. Cf., Nicholas Taylor, “The Social Nature of Conversion,” in Modelling Early Christianity, ed. Philip Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995), 129-36; Jerome Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honor,” in Modelling Early, 139-59.
219 As a wealthy widow, the step-mother would most probably have access to philosophical education either in her father’s house, from her husband, or she could bring a philosopher into her home after she was widowed. It is likely that when she was younger that she received her education in her father’s house before she got married as did other girls of her status. After marriage, her husband could encourage philosophical education in a number of ways: including her in discussions with philosophically educated persons in the household, teaching her himself, or simply not interfering with her intellectual interests. Later in life, as a member of the church, she no doubt heard 1 Corinthians being read aloud in front of the entire church, and was able to interact with it, utilizing the benefit of her education.
Stephanas and Gaius Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:16 that he was thankful that he only baptized a few Corinthians himself, one group including the household of Stephanas, who proved to be a valuable asset (1 Cor. 16:17). The wealth, status, and power of Stephanas and Gaius is so widely accepted in scholarship that most commentators simply take it for granted rather than presenting a case for it. Raymond Collings concludes on the basis of Paul’s description of Gauis’s house that it was able to support the “whole church” (Rom. 16:23).694 Alan F. Johnson and others assert that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans
694
Raymond Collings, First Corinthians, ed. Daniel Harrington. Sacred pagina. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 98; Brendan Bryne, Romans, ed. Daniel Harrington, Sacred pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 459; Horsely, Paul and Empire, 213; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1994), 255; Khiok-Khng Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-cultural Hermeneutic (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 88; David
220 from Gaius’s house and of course the church met there. 695 It is the home ownership of Gaius that is the reason for NT scholars to believe that he is wealthy, of high status, and powerful. Likewise, Paul mentions the “ton Stefana= oi]kon” twice (1 Cor. 1:16 and 16:15), quite possibly referring to the wealthy, powerful, and high status ancient household that includes wives, children, slaves, and clients.696 This presumption is supported by the assistance that Stephanas renders in 1 Cor. 16.16.697 An assembly of Christians also met in the house of Prisca and Aquila (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3-5). But in what kind of dwellings did the Corinthians meet? Such characteristics can also assist in identifying the wealth and status of some members of the community. The ancient wealthy household was organized in a patriarchal fashion that was reinforced by Roman law and custom and included wives, children, and slaves.698 This type of household afforded the interaction of the entire spectrum of social status, including the wealthy homeowner and his/her friends, clients, freedpersons, and slaves.
G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 96; cf., Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 26; Thiselton, Corinthians, 25-7. 695
Johnson, Corinthians, 52.
696
Horrell, Social Ethos, 96; Thiselton, Corinthians, 140; L. L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), 26. 697
Hays, Corinthians, 23-4; Collins, Corinthians, 84; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 858. 698
Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook ( New York: Routledge, 1991).
221 The Roman home was a place of business for the elite and workshops for the poor.699 The wealthier Roman home could facilitate a gathering of about forty people or perhaps many more,700 and the homeowner would be positioned to offer the church legal and financial stability. In urban conditions, there is an additional structure that could facilitate the worship situation that is laid out in 1 Corinthians, namely the tenement701 housing rented by the rest of the population. 702 Paul, however, describes a situation that lends itself more towards a household setting, primarily with the communal meal and the problems which arose out of that practice.703 699
David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 54; Eric M. Meyers, “The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-Palestinian Domestic Architecture: The Case of Roman-Period Galilee,” in Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 44-72. 700
Jerome Murphy-O’Conner argues for a smaller gathering due to the size of a Roman house in Corinth during the first century and a smaller Pompeiian house, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983). David Balch argues for the possibility of a considerably larger gathering based on the archeaology at Pompeii, “Rich Pompeiian Houses,” 41; cf., Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Housefuls,” in Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 3-18. 701
Alexander Gordon McKay, Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998; first ed., London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), 84; Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 33-4). 702
Robert Jewett, “Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thess 3:10,” BR 38 (1993): 23-43; Jewett, “Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts,” QR 14 (1994): 43-58. 703
Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 546 (1 Cor. 11:22).
222 The situation in Corinth can be contrasted with that of another Pauline community that was not integrated into a wealthier household and the benefits that such a relationship entails. When Paul arrived at Corinth, he was a seasoned preacher and church founder. Because of this, he was able to connect with at least a few people who had access to wealth who offered their support to his cause.704 The hosts of Christian house churches functioned in a way analogous to that of such patrons. At Corinth, Stephanas seems to have been such a patron (1 Cor. 16:15-18), and at nearby Cenchreae, Phoebe is identified as diakonos prostates (Rom. 16:1-2). The latter term probably denotes a woman who functions as patroness to some society.705 Unlike Paul’s experience in Corinth, in Thessalonica he seems to have preached his Gospel without being sensitive to establishing patronal support, agitating wealthy citizens with frank speech rather than attracting them in a more friendly fashion.706 As a result, the Pauline community suffered persecution and was not protected by anyone with access to wealth. Therefore, Thessalonians had no patron to provide a home and a love feast; instead, they met in their crowded tenement houses and were vulnerable to all external threats.707 If there was some integration into the Thessalonian community, there would have been mention of some patron in the Thessalonian correspondence as there is
704
Still, Conflict, 239. Some type of beneficial relationship would be required to share a house, whether it was provided by a patron directly or indirectly, Balch and Osiek, Families in the New Testament World, 54; Meeks, Urban Christians, 75-8. 705
Stambaugh and Balch, Social Environment, 140
706
Fredrickson, David E. “Parrhsi/a in the Pauline Epistles,” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech, ed. John T. Fitzgerald (New York: Brill, 1996); Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors, NTSup 183, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 707
Robert Jewett, “Tenement Churches,” 23-43: Jewett, “Love Feasts,” 43-58.
223 in most other Pauline letters (Phil. 4.22; Rom. 16.1; 1 Cor 1:16; Philem. 2). On the other hand in Corinth we do not see any persecution from outsiders, people are taking each other to court (1 Cor. 6:1-8),708 members of the church are being invited to meals (1 Cor. 10:27),709 and worship described in 1 Cor. 11 is often understood as occuring in the house of a wealthy person.710 Several aspects of the Corinthian church point toward the participation of at least some wealthy people who could have facilitated the philosophical education of women. The household contexts of Christian worship, participation in court, serving as synagogue leader, and the intrigue of the affair all indicate there were some households that could have produced philosophically educated women. From what we learn from the histories of women in philosophy, most access to philosophical education is connected to the wealthy household. Philosophical education was provided to some slaves (Epictetus, for example), a tutor could be brought into the household to teach the master’s family and teach her own daughters as well, and freed grammarians taught their partners and daughters. The wealthy Roman household provided a variety of contexts in which women in many different conditions could learn some philosophy. 708
Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 94.
709
For review of the issues related to food offered to idols and relevant bibliography, see John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socialrhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 (Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Richard Liong-Seng Phua, Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1 in the light of the Jewish Diaspora (London: T&T Clark, 2005). 710
David G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 98; Witherington, Conflict, 30; Collings, Corinthians, 74; Hays, Corinthians, 196; James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians (New York : T&T Clark, 2003), 90. Conra Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 106-7.
224 Aquila and Prisca According to 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Acts,711 Aquila and Prisca712 moved their tentmaking business and established households in three cities in the ancient world: from Rome to Corinth to Ephesus and back to Rome. Some scholars have argued that this travel indicates that Aquila and Prisca had access to some wealth. 713 In light of the historical evidence, however, these arguments are not convincing. Travel in the ancient world was dangerous for everyone, but particularly so for the wealthy who actually had goods and money for bandits to steal. Even travelers who were able to hire a contingent of bodyguards attracted bandits who would plunder and maybe even kill everyone in the party.714 Perhaps the most successful travelers were people who were poor – or looked the part – and slipped by danger due to their humble appearance. Because of the dangers associated with travel, a good deal of travel was done only by people who absolutely 711
William O. Walker convincingly argues that virtually all of the information in Acts concerning Aquila and Prisca is in Pauline letters, which possibly served as a source for Acts, “The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources,” NTS 54 no 4 (2008): 479-495. 712
Marie Noël Keller, Priscilla and Aquila: Paul’s Coworkers in Christ Jesus, Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith, ed. Bruce Malina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2010). 713
Christopher Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 116-7; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 955. Opposing views include Schüssler-Fiorenza, “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers,” 429; Jerome Murphy-O’connor, “Prisca and Aquila: Travleing Tentmakers and Church Builders,” BR 86, no. 6 (1992): 42. Keller does not take a stand on the issue, Priscilla and Aquila, xiii-xv. 714
Brent D. Shaw, “Bandits in the Roman Empire,” P&P 105 (1984): 3-52; cf., Charles Knapp, “Travel in Ancient Times as Seen by Plautus and Terence. II,” C Phil 2, no. 3 (1907): 281-304; L. W. Hunter, “Cicero’s Journey to His Province of Cilicia in 51 B.C.,” JRS 3, no. 1 (1913): 73-97; Silvia Montiglio, “Should the Aspiring Wise Man Travel? A Conflict in Seneca’s Thought,” AJP 127, no. 4 (2006): 553-586; Rachel I. Skalitzky, “Horace on Travel (Epist. 1.11),” CJ 68, no. 4 (1973): 316-321.
225 needed to do so: the military and merchants.715 Travel was by no means restricted to the elite and therefore it is not a signifier of wealth. Peter Lampe has shown that humble tentmakers’ earnings could have easily funded all of the travels of Aquila and Prisca. 716 Although Ronald Hock’s work has focused on Paul in his studies on tentmaking, his researches are applicable to the occupations of Aquila and Prisca. 717 Hock argues that tentmaking can easily be a mobile trade because it only requires few tools to transport.718 Todd Still has challenged the widely accepted views of Hock, but for the most part his critique finely tunes Hock’s work with respect to Paul’s social status.719 Of course, other
715
Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974); William West Mooney, Travel among the Ancient Romans (Boston: Gorham Press, 1920); Benjamin W. Wells, “Trade and Travel in the Roman Empire,” CJ 19, no. 1 (1923): 7-16; Benjamin W. Wells, “Trade and Travel in the Roman Empire,” CJ 19, no. 2 (1923): 6778. 716
Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 187-95. 717
Ronald Hock, “Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic,” GRBS 17 (1976): 4153. Reprinted in Die Kyniker in der moderne Forschung: Aufsätze mit Einführung und Bibliographie, ed. Margarethe Billerbeck, Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie 15 (Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1991), 259-71; Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking,”4-13; Hock, “The Workshop as a Social Setting for Paul’s Missionary Preaching,” CBQ 41 (1979): 438-50, reprinted in Tentmaking, 14-25; “The Problem of Paul’s Social Class: Further Reflections,” in Paul’s World, ed. Stanley Porter, Pauline Studies 4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2008), 7-18. 718 719
Hock, Social Context, 24.
Todd D. Still, “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class,” JBL 125, no. 4 (2006): 781-795; Goran Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in the Old Testament, Intertestamental and Early Rabbinic Writings (Lund: Verbum Hakan Ohlssons, 1976), 104, 115.
226 views about Paul and poverty have further questioned the nature of Paul’s social status.720 For Paul, one must reconcile the nature of Paul’s education with his lowly position as a tentmaker. For Hock and others, this problem is resolved by noting that Paul has an aristocratic view towards work and he chose a profession much like a wise-man would do to demonstrate his self-sufficiency and freedom from the will of a patron. For Aquila and Prisca, there is no hint that they were educated as Paul was, but they did have a church meeting in their home (perhaps a tenement house rented by low-status, poorer people) and traveled extensively. Nevertheless, since we have no indication of wealth in Prisca and Aquila’s tenement home, there is no context for education, and nothing else indicates the presence of philosophically educated women. It is likely that Prisca and Aquila did enjoy some status in the community of Christ believers because of their close association with Paul.
Phoebe the Patroness Because Paul gives two titles to Phoebe in Romans 16:1 which have a wide range of meanings, there is no shortage of views concerning the nature of her roles. In this section I will present the central arguments concerning the nature of Phoebe with a special interest in Paul’s description of her as his prostatis. The term prostatis has been translated “patroness,” “helper,” or “protector.” The current trends point toward Phoebe
720
Steven J. Friesen writes the apostle “may have chosen a life of downward mobility, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus,” JSNT 26 (2004), 359. With respect to the economic conditions of Paul’s converts, John M. G. Barclay comments, “I doubt we will ever be able to reach more than tentative and imprecise conclusions,” “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen,” JSNT 26 (2004), 365. See also Horrell, Social Ethos, 203.
227 as a wealthy patroness. 721 R. A. Kearsley has argued on the basis of the careers of Junia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora (in contrast to Ernst Käsemann722) that wealthy women in Kenchreai “could and did hold influential positions in the society of Paul’s lifetime, and that the title prostatis and cognate words designated such actions.”723 Junia Theodora is by far the most important example of the wealthy prostatis / patroness but scholars also point to the wealthy mother charged with providing for her orphaned son as 721
Meeks, First Urban Chrisitans, 60, 79; Stambaugh and Balch, Social Environment, 140; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 35; Roman Garrison, “Phoebe, the Servant-benefactor and Gospel Traditions,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson, ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Robert Desjardins, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9 (Ontario: Wilfrid University Press, 2000), 63-73. On the other hand, Esther Yue L. Ng argues that Phoebe was not necessarily wealthy or influential and certainly did not have a typical patronal relationship with Paul, who showed contempt for such things, “Phoebe as Prostatis,” TRINJ 25, n.s. (2004): 3-13. Ng is unconvincing because she relies exclusively on Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Cor. 9:1-18 and 2 Cor. 11:9-10 as rationale that Paul could not have entered into a patronal relationship. However, Romans often masked their patronal relationships in such rhetoric to create an air of artistic or academic freedom in spite of the financial support that they received: Horace, Od. 3. For the patrons who give a similar view on artistic freedom and the friendship nature of literary patronage see Cic. Arch. and Plin. Ep. 3.21. 722
Ernest Käsemann, Commentary to Romans, trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1980), 411. 723
The nature of the activity of Junia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora will be discussed in detail in chapter five. R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynB 50, no. 2 (1999): 189-211; Kearsley utilizes the work of G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4 (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University, 1987), 241-44; G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5 (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University, 1989), 149; J. Reynolds, and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 12 (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987), 5 l. 9, 8, 101; M. H. Williams, “The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisias - A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?,” Historia 41, no. 3 (1992), 300. Cf., E. A. Judge, “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents,” TynB 35 (1984): 3-24.
228 his prostatis with parallel examples.724 In addition to patron and guardian, there is also the usage of the term as president of an association.725 Ross Shepard Kraemer notes that the association at Aphrodisias may have had a prostatis, a woman patron.726 While the precise shade of meaning might be muddled by the relative rarity of prostatis and its apparent wide range of meaning, it is clear that the term denotes someone of either real or attributed wealth and power, and Paul is expressing his social inferiority and reliance on the assistance of Phoebe. 727 In this respect, Paul is acknowledging her as his patron at least in an informal sense, but probably not the legal sense.728 Joan Cecelia Campbell has written a monograph on Phoebe, setting her within the many contexts of the wealthy first century Roman woman. 729 Elizabeth Schüssler-
724
P.Med.Bar. 1 = SBXVI 1270.1-20, 142 BCE. Translation in Rowlandson, Women and Society, 125. Judith Evans Grubbs notes that the prostatis mother-guardian relationship changed later to epitropos, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London: Routledge, 2002), 254. Grubbs’s examples include P.Oxy. 7.898, 123 CE and P.Oxy. 3.496, 127 CE. Van Bremen demonstrates that the epitropoi usually are the guardians of their own children and always act under the authority of their own kyrios: I.Erythrai 201; Milet 13.147 and Milet, no. 151. For comment by New Testament scholars, see Witherington, Conflict and Community, 34 and Judge, “Cultural Conformity,” 21. 725
Ray R. Schulz, “A Case for “President” Phoebe in Romans 16:2,” LTJ 24, no. 3 (1990) 124-127. 726
Kraemer, Unreliable Witnesses, 232.
727
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper, 1957), 283; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Commentary on Romans 12-13 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965), 783; Käsemann, Romans, 411. 728
Carolyn Osiek, “Diakonos and Prostatis: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity,” HTS 61, no. 1 (2005) 348, 364-5. 729
Joan Cecelia Campbell, Phoebe: Patron and Emissary (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2009).
229 Fiorenza has repeatedly examined the modern interpretations of Phobe’s role in the early church, demonstrating the need for a more balanced approach that does not come from the dominant patriarchal perspectives. 730 Schüssler-Fiorenza’s method frees the interpreter to approach the text concerning Phoebe without the constraints of malecentered assumptions that baselessly exclude the possibilities of Phoebe’s leadership roles. Wendy Cotter argues that the service of women in the Pauline churches fits within cultural norms for the wealthy, but the egalitarian description of their service in the church is counter-cultural.731 Caroline F. Whelan says of Phoebe: [she was] a wealthy and independent woman, likely educated, and patron to one or more clubs, undoubtedly moved in more elite circles than Paul and his church, among those of her social rank. As a member of the upper classes, she was able to secure connections for Paul and his church connections which, in a statusconscious like the Roman world where wealth and power went hand in hand, could only be beneficial.732
730
Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, “Women in the Pre-Pauline and Pauline Churches,” USQR 33 no. 3-4 (1978), 157-8; Schüssler-Fiorenza, “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History,” WW 6, no 4 (1986), 420-433; Schüssler-Fiorenza, “Phoebe,” Bibel Heute 79 (1984), 162– 64; Schüssler-Fiorenza, “The Quilting of Women’s History: Phoebe of Cenchreae,” in Embodied Love: Sensuality and Relationship as Feminist Values, ed. Paula M. Cooey, Sharon A. Farmer, and Mary Ellen Ross (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 35-49. 731
Wendy Cotter, “Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional?,” NovT 36, no. 4 (1994): 350-372. For more on Phoebe see E. A. Judge, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community,” JRH 1 (1960): 125–137; Margaret Mitchell, “Paul’s Letters to Corinth,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, ed. Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 311; Cf., John T. Fitzgerald, “Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction: 1 Peter and Domestic Violence Against Slaves and Wives,” in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson, ed. M. W. Hamilton, T. H. Olbricht, and J. Peterson. Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2007), 24-44. 732
Caroline F. Whelan, “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church,” JSNT 49 (1993): 85.
230 Robert Jewett goes so far as to argue that Phoebe was essential to establishing the Spanish mission by helping Paul develop relationships with wealthy patrons there.733 On the basis of being true to the role of women as patronesses in Kenchreai, I will agree with Theissen and many others that prostatis is an indicator of wealth for Phoebe, and therefore she would be a good candidate for a philosophical education either as a child or an adult.
Divorce in 1 Cor. 7:1-16 In 1 Cor. 7:1-16, Paul gives instructions on marriage and divorce for both men and women. This section will remain focused on the issue of the presence of philosophically educated women in the Corinthian community. The question that I will ask of 1 Cor. 7:1-16 is simply this: does this material offer any suggestion that households which could facilitate the philosophical education of women were active in the Corinthian community? To address this question, I will examine Paul’s instructions concerning marriage and divorce for signs of wealthy households within the church. Some of these signs could include the practices of divorce described in the text, possible interest in the stability of the wealthy Roman home, and parallels to Roman philosophy. Unfortunately, it is customary for scholars not to address questions of wealth and status when interpreting 1 Cor. 7:1-16, and no one looks for philosophically educated
733
Robert Jewett, “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in The Social World of Christianity and Judaism: Esssays in Honor of Howard Clark Kee, ed. Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 142-61.
231 women. 734 This practice is particularly distressing for two reasons: the widespread consensus among scholars that the Corinthian church was socially stratified (1 Cor. 1:26) and what we know about marriage and divorce in the Roman period. It is common for scholars who argue that 1 Cor. 1:26 indicates that there were at least some wealthy people in the Corinthian community to not consider this interpretation when they examine 1 Cor. 7:1-16.735 It is also common for scholars who contextualize the social setting of divorce and remarriage in the Roman period to use materials that are exclusively written by and for the elite and do not address what this context may say about the social setting of women in the church.736 Most of these scholars do not even ask the question regarding whether or not Paul is addressing at least some wealthier members of the church, even though his instructions and the practices of the church obviously share characteristics of the Roman elite with regard to marriage and divorce as indicated by their studies.
734
Gillian Beattie, Women and Marriage in Paul and his Early Interpreters, JSNTSup 296, ed. Mark Goodadre (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 15-36. 735
Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 162, 273-329; Collins, Corinthians, 98, 251-272, cf., Raymond F. Collins, Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992); William Bearslee, First Corinthians: A Commentary for Today (St. Louis: Chalice, 1994); Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 105, 272-367; Keener, Corinthians, 31, 63-5; Thiselton, Corinthians, 27, 497-543. Cf., David Gill believes that there are wealthy people in the church but does not addess the issue of marriage and divorce, “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” TynB 44, no. 2 (1993): 323-37. 736
J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); David Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri,” TynB 52, no 1 (2001): 101-115; Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Jewish Greek and Aramaic Marriage and Divorce Papyri,” TynB 52, no 2 (2001): 225-243; InstoneBrewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Caroline Johnson Hodge, “Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16,” HTR 103, no. 1 (2010): 1-25.
232 However, some interpreters have indicated that 1 Cor. 7:1-16 does have something to do with the marriage practices of wealthy women. Divorce was common in the upper classes, and it is very difficult to determine how legal categories of marriage and divorce pertained among the poor.737 Rodney Stark argues from the patristics and other later evidence that wealthy Christian women had managed to convert their husbands with increasing frequency in the first five centuries. 738 Lynn H. Cohic argues that Paul directs his instructions concerning marriage and divorce to wealthy men and women, who have the most to gain or lose from such actions. 739 With regard to the possibility of philosophically educated women, the phrase “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” is likely an ascetic slogan from those Christians who were “wise” and “strong.”740 This interpretation nicely compliments Wire, who argues that the slogan 737
David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 74; Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1992), 61; Susan Treggiari, “Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?,” Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1991), 38-9; K. R. Bradley, “Remarriage and the Structure of the Upper Class Roman Family,” Marriage, Divorce and Children, 79-93; Myles McDonnell, “Divorce Initiated by Women in Rome: The Evidence of Plautus,” AJAH 8 (1983): 54-80; Mireille Corbier, “Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Childrenin Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 47-78; Jane F. Gardner suggests that poor women may have been more interested in whatever economic advantage there was in keeping the family unit intact, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 82. 738
Rodney Stark, “Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women,” Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (1995): 229-244. 739
740
Lynn H. Cohic, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 99-112.
John C. Hurd, Jr., The Origins of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965), 67; W. E. Phipps, “Is Paul’s Attitude Towards Sexual Relations Contained in 1 Cor 7:1,” NTS 28 (1982): 125-30.
233 could have been misapplied to the women prophets, who did not apply the slogan to themselves. 741 Philosophical training might be an influence for this slogan that refers to abstinence from sex, either within or outside of marriage.742 According to Iamblichus (c. 245-325 CE), Pythagoras (c. 570-495 BCE) also required marital faithfulness from men and women: le/getai de kai toiou~to&n ti dielqei=n, o3ti peri th_n xw&ran tw~n Krotwniatw~n a)ndro_j men a)reth_ pro_j gunai=ka diabebo&htai, 0Odusse/wj ou) decame/nou para_ th~j Kaluyou~j a)qanasi/an e0pi tw ~ th_n Phnelo&phn katalipei=n, u(polei/poito de tai=j (5) gunaicin ei0j tou_j a1ndraj a)podei/casqai th_n kalokagaqi/an, o3pwj ei0j i1son katasth&swsi th_n eu)logi/an. a(plw~j de mnhmoneu&etai dia_ ta_j ei0rhme/naj e0nteu&ceij peri Puqago&ran ou) metri/an timh_n kai spoudh_n kai kata_ th_n po&lin tw~n Krotwniatw~n gene/sqai kai dia_ th_n po&lin peri th_n 0Itali/an. This discourse had effect also on marital fidelity, to an extent such that in the Crotonan region connubial faithfulness became proverbial; (thus imitating) Ulysses who, rather than abandon Penelope, considered immortality well lost. Pythagoras encouraged the Crotonian women to emulate Ulysses, by exhibiting their probity to their husbands. In short, through these (social) discourses Pythagoras acquired great fame both in Crotona, and in the rest of Italy. 743 Iamblichus also tells us that the Pythagoreans strictly practiced sexual intercourse within marriage, and then only for reproduction.744 It is possible that 7.1b may have Cynic 741
Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 94.
742
Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 151; Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 264-76; Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7.1 in the NIV,” JETS 23 (1980): 307-14; Fee, “1 Corinthians 7.1-7 Revisited,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict, ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliot (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 197-213; cf., Ross S. Kraemer, “The Conversion of Women to Ascetic Forms of Christianity,” Signs 6, no. 2, Studies in Change (1980): 298-307. 743 744
Iambl. VP 11.57, cf., 27.132
Iambl. VP 47-8, 57, 210; Kathy L. Gaca, “The Reproductive Technology of the Pythagoreans,” C Phil 95, no. 2 (2000): 117.
234 connotations that Paul seeks to correct.745 William Klassen finds parallels between Paul and Epictetus’s (55-135 CE) description of the ideal Cynic.746 Paul also may be expressing Stoic attitudes similar to of Musonius Rufus (fl. 1st CE), Epictetus (55-155 CE), and Hierocles (fl. 2nd CE).747 The result of Paul’s teaching is a religious group that encourages marriage between believers and prohibits divorce: such a practice contains immorality. 748 Paul’s advice is therefore precisely opposite of the Epicurean Metrodorus (c. 331-278 BCE) who wrote to Pythocles (c. 340-285 BCE): Punqa/nomai/ sou thn kata sa/rka ki/nhsin a0fqonw/teron diakei=sqai proj thn tw=n a0frodisi/wn e1nteucin. su de o3tan mh/te touj no/mouj katalu/h?j mh/te tw=n plhsi/on tina luph?=j mh/te thn sa/rka katacai/nh?j mh/te ta a0nagkai=a katanali/skh?j, xrw= w9j bou/lei th=? seatou= proaie/sei a0mh/xanon me/ntoi ge to mh ou0x e9ni/ ge/ tina tou/twn sune/xesqai· a0frodi/sia gar ou0de/pote w1nhsen· a0gaphton de mh e1blayon.
745
Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 115. 746
William Klassen, “Musonius Rufus, Jesus, and Paul: Three First Century Feminists” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honor of Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), 195; Epict. Disc. 3.22.70-1, 74. 747
David L. Balch, “1 Cor 7:32-35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage Anxiety, and Distraction,” JBL 102, no. 3 (1983): 429-439; O. Larry Yarborough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); Vincent L. Wimbush, Paul, the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Self-understanding According to 1 Corinthians 7 (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987); William Klassen, “Musonius Rufus, Jesus, and Paul: Three First Century Feminists,” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honor of Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), 185-206. 748
Margaret MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hyterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 131; cf., Margaret MacDonald, “Early Christian Women and Unbelievers,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff (London: T&T Clark), 14-28; Ross S. Kraemer, “The Conversion of Women to Ascetic Forms of Christianity,” Signs 6, no. 2, Studies in Change (1980): 298-307.
235 You tell me that the movement of your flesh is too inclined towards sexual intercourse. So long as you do not break the laws or disturb the established or distress any of your neighbours or ravage your body or sqaunder the necessities of life, act upon your inclination any way you like. Yet it is impossible not to be constrained by at least one of these. For sex is never advantageous, and one should be content if it does not harm.749 Metrodorus views sexual intercourse in itself as a natural, morally neutral act. Because sexual intercourse is not inherently harmful, sexual desire can be expressed without any kind of penalty. For Paul, sexual desire is something that must be controlled, and sexual intercourse should only occur with one’s husband or wife. Paul’s advice to Pythocles would be much different that of the Epicurean Metrodorus: either practice self-control or get married.
Head-coverings and Status, Wealth, and Power In 1 Cor. 11:2-16, Paul gives instructions concerning head-coverings to both men750 and women in the Corinthian church, with a special interest in behavior during worship. The issue of head-coverings for women prophets is naturally an important one in Antionette Wire’s The Corinthian Women Prophets. As I noted above in section 1.8, Wire situates her woman prophets as precisely the social opposite to most philosophically
749
Metrodorus to Pythocles = Epicurus, Sent. Vat. 51. A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1: Translations of the Principal Sources, with Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 116. Two editions of the text are available: G. Arrighetti, Epicuro Opere (Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1960); A. A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 2, Greek and Latin Texts (Cambridge University Press, 1987). 750
Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 121-2.
236 educated women. 751 Beginning from this point of departure, this dissertation is orientated towards how Paul’s instructions would foreground two wealthy philosophically educated women instead of a group of poor uneducated women prophets. There has been some discussion as to whether or not 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is Pauline, 752 but multi-disciplinary examinations have demonstrated that this passage is genuine.753 There is also some debate concerning the nature of the head-covering, whether it is a hairstyle754 or some type of veil. 755 Another debate centers on the question of the
751
Wire, Women Prophets, 65; A. C. Wire, “Prophecy and Women Prophets in Corinth,” in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: Essays in Honor of J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. Goehring, et al, Forum Fascicles 1 (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990), 134-150. 752
William O. Walker, Jr., “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women,” JBL 94, no. 1 (1975): 94-110; William O. Walker, Jr., “The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?,” JSNT 35 (1989): 75-88; L. Cope, “1 Cor 11.2-16: One Step Further,” JBL 97 (1978): 435-36; Christopher N. Mount, “1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a non-Pauline Interpolation,” JBL 124, no. 2 (2005): 313-340. 753
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?,” JBL 95, no. 4 (1976): 615-621; Murphy-O’Connor argues that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is Pauline and not an interpolation, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” CBQ 48, no. 1 (1986): 81-94. 754
J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Religious Hair,” Man, n.s. 8, no. 1 (1973): 100-103; A. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church. The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” JSNT 20 (1984): 69-86; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, ‘‘Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:3- 16,” CBQ 42 (1989): 485; Jerome Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of his Letters (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 133. 755
Troy W. Martin, “An Unusual Interpretation is Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” JBL 123 no. 1 (2004): 75-84; Preston T. Massey demonstrates that the interpretation “hairstyle” cannot be sustained lexically, “The Meaning of katakalyptō and kata kephalēs echōn in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” NTS 53 no., 4 (2007): 502-523.
237 meaning and significance of kefalh/,756 whether it means “authority / leader,”757 or “source.”758 What 1 Cor. 11:2-16 doubtlessly shows is that women were active in worship – along with men – and Paul attempted to regulate their activity according to his own sensibilities.759 Apparently, the Corinthians were muddling the outer differences between the sexes by switching what Paul considered normal attire for worship: women were not wearing their head-coverings and men wore something on their heads.760 This muddling of the sexes has caused some interpreters to conclude that the issue had
756
Alan F. Johnson, “A Review of the Scholarly Debate on the Meaning of “head” (kephalē) in Paul’s Writings,” ATJ 41 (2009): 35-57; Wayne A. Grudem, “The Meaning of kephalē (“head”): an Evaluation of new Evidence, Real and Alleged,” JETS 44, no. 1 (2001): 25-65. 757
Wayne A. Grudem, “Does kephalē (“head”) mean ‘source’ or ‘authority over’ in Greek Literature: A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ, n.s. 6, no. 1 (1985): 38-59; Richard S. Cervin, “Does kephalē mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature: A Rebuttal,” TrinJ, n.s. 10, no. 1 (1989); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Another Look at Keqalh in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” NTS 35, no. 4 (1989): 503-511; Joseph A. Fitzmyer argues against “source” for “authority over,” “Kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3,” Int 47, no. 1 (1993): 5259; A. C. Perriman argues for the authority metaphor, but concludes that in 1 Corinthians it is a matter of reciprocal honor, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of ‘head’ in 1 Cor. 11:3,” JTS 45, no. 2 (1994): 602-22. 758
Wayne A. Grudem reviews this perspective and convincingly argues against it in “The meaning of kephalē (“head”): A Response to Recent Studies,” TrinJ, n.s. 11, no. (1990): 3-72; Richard E. Oster, “Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7,1-5, 8,10, 11,2-16, 12,14-26),” ZNW 83, no. 1 (1992): 52-73. 759
Harold R. Holmyard, III., “Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?,” BSac 154 no. 616 (1997): 461-472. 760
Richard Oster, “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4,” NTS 34 no 4 (1988): 481-505; Khiok-Khng Yeo, “Differentiation and Mutuality of Male-Female Relations in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” BR 43 (1998): 7-21; Kenneth T. Wilson, “Should Women Wear Headcoverings,” BSac 148, no. 592 (1991): 442-462.
238 something to do with male or female homosexuality. 761 For women, the absence of the veil has also been associated with the attire of prostitutes and otherwise sexual availability of women, so one of Paul’s motivations for writing this passage is a concern for modesty.762 While Paul is almost certainly addressing issues related to modesty and sexual differentiation, it is evident from epigraphy and archaeology that Corinthian women wore veils only on certain occasions and were free to appear in public without a veil. 763 However, for Paul, prophesying without a veil is immodest and sexually immoral.764 In 1 Cor. 11:2-16, Paul seeks to correct these behaviors, encouraging the Corinthians to adhere to his views regarding proper attire in a worship setting. At this point, I will ask of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 simply this: does this material offer any suggestion that wealthy households were active in the Corinthian community? Can head-coverings somehow point to wealth? Unfortunately, scholars who interpret this passage normally 761
Gillian Townsley, “Gender Trouble in Corinth: Que(e)rying Constructs of Gender in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Bible & Critical Theory 2, no. 2 (2006); Kirk R. MacGregor, “Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a Prohibition of Homosexuality?,” BSac 166, no. 662 (2009): 201-216. 762
Prostitutes and other sexually available or otherwise disgraced women were instantly recognizable not due to the lack of a veil but because they wore the toga. Julia Heskel, “Cicero as Evidence for Attitudes to Dress in the Late Republic,” in The World of Roman Costume, ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), 141; Norma Goldman, “Reconstructing Roman Clothing,” in Roman Costume, 228. 763
Elaine Fantham, “Covering the Head at Rome,” in Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, ed. Jonathan Edmondson and Allison Keith (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 228. 764
“Veiled Exhortations Regarding the Veil,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Ericksson (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 269.
239 do not address questions of wealth, status, and power; although many studies focus on sources that are exclusively describe the sensibilities and practices of the elite.765 Other scholars, however, have realized that the material that informs us about Roman custom, fashion, and moral sensibilities relate only to the elite, so Paul’s regulation of this issue must be given to elite women. 766 Some lower class women die not wear veils because such clothing would hinder manual labor.767 This is significant because if Paul is addressing lower class prophesying women – as Wire imagines – then he could be insulting their plight by demanding that they do something that they could never afford due to their humble circumstance. 768 The popular moral philosophers in the schools that were associated with Corinth were also concerned with the modesty of women. The teachings of the Pythagorean Theano (fl. 6th BCE) are used by Plutarch (Mor. 142c; 46-120 CE) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 4.19.122; c. 150-217 CE) as a model for how women should practice 765
David K. Lowery, “The Head Covering and Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:2-34,” BSac, 143 no. 570 (1986): 155-163; Raymond F. Collins, Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992): 9-39; David Gill, “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” TynB 44 (1993): 323-37; cf., Dale B. Martin, “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators,” JAAR 59, no. 3 (1991): 347-89. 766
Gail P. Corrington, “The ‘Headless Woman’: Paul and the Language of the Body in 1 Cor 11:2-16,” PRS 18, no. 3 (1991): 223-231; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 45; Luise Schottroff, “Holiness and Justice: Exegetical Comments on 1 Corinthians 11.17-34,” trans. Brian McNeil, JSNT 23, no. 79 (2000): 51-60; Mark Finney, “Honour, Head-coverings and Headship: 1 Corintians 11.216 in its Social Context,” JSNT 33, no. 1 (2010): 31-58. 767
Kelly Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-presentation and Society (London: Routledge, 2008), 45-7; For precisely the opposite view, see Ramsey MacMullen, “Women in Public,” Historia 29, no. 2 (1980): 217-8; Catherine Kroeger, “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-Roman Cults of Women,” JETS 30 (1987): 37. 768
Wire, Corinthian Women Propets, 65.
240 modesty. The Pythagorean pseudipigrapha regularly addresses women’s dress, and is mostly orientated towards modesty and self-control. For example, Perictione (c. 350 BCE?) writes: skh~noj ga_r e0qe/lei mh_ r(ige/ein mhde gumno_n ei]nai xa&rin eu)prepei/hj, a1llou d' ou)deno_j xrh &zei. do&ca de a)nqrw&pwn meta_ a)maqi/hj e0j ta_ kenea& te kai perissa_ i3etai. w3st' ou1te xruso_n a)mfiqh&setai h2 li/qon 0Indiko_n h2 xw&rhj e0o&nta a1llhj, ou)de ple/cetai polutexni/h si tri/xaj, ou)d' a)lei/yetai 0Arabi/hj a1llhj, ou)de ple/cetai polutexni/h si tri/xaj, ou)d' a)lei/yetai 0Arabi/hj o)dmh~j e0mpne/onta, ou)de xri/setai pro&swpon leukai/nousa h2 e0ruqrai/nousa tou~t o h2 melai/nousa o)fru&aj te kai o)fqalmou_j kai th_n polih_n tri/xa bafai=si texnewme/nh, ou)de lou&setai qamina&. h( ga_r tau~ta zhte/ousa qhhth~ra zhtei= a)krasi/hj gunaikhi/hj. For the body wants neither to shiver nor to be naked (for the sake of decency), and needs nothing else. But human opinion, with its ignorance, rushes into what is empty and excessive. So she will not wear gold nor Indian stone nor will she plait her hair with great skills, nor anoint herself with Arabian perfumes, nor will she paint her face, whitening or roughing it, nor blacken her eyebrows and eyelashes and treating her gray hair with dyes, nor will she bathe too often. For a woman who seeks these things seeks an admirer of feminine weakness. For beauty from intelligence, and not from these things, pleases women who are well born. 769 Similarly, Melissa argues that the ideal wife is concerned with how to please her husband and the economy of her household instead of spending money on expensive clothes. Melissa’s conclusion is that “She should trust the beauty and richness of her soul rather than that of her appearance and wealth; for envy and illness remove the later, but the former extend right up to her death,” “pisteu&en ga_r xrh_ tw ~ ta~j yuxa~j ka&llei te kai plou&tw ma~llon h2 tw ~ ta~j o1yioj kai tw~n xrhma&twn: ta_ men ga_r fqo&noj kai nou~soj paraire/etai, ta_ de me/xri qana&tw pa&renti e0ktetame/na.”770 Phyntis also thinks that women should find their fulfillment in virtue and not the various 769
Perictione, On the Harmony of Women 1 = Stob. 4.28.19. Translation from Plant, Women Writers, 77. 770
Melissa to Cleareta. Plant, Women Writers, 83.
241 ornamentations of the body. 771 When Iamblichus describes the self-control of the Pythagoreans, he writes that the early communities did not allow free-born women to wear gold (33.187; cf., 11.56). Cicero (106-43 BCE) often criticized both men and women for wearing inappropriate and immodest clothing. 772 Seneca (4-65 CE) compliments to his philosophically educated mother Helvia for her modesty: non faciem coloribus ac lenociniis polluisti; numquam tibi placuit vestis, quae nihil amplius nudaret, cum poneretur. Unicum tibi ornamentum, pulcherrima et nulli obnoxia aetati forma, maximum decus visa est pudicitia. you have not defiled your face with paints and cosmetics; never have you fancied the kind of dress that exposed no greater nakedness by being removed. In you has been seen that peerless ornament, that fairest beauty on which time lays no hand, that chiefest glory which is modesty. 773 Epictetus (55-135 CE) discusses the importance of dressing appropriately, appealing to nature: a)nh_r ei] h2 gunh&; 0Anh&r. 1Andra ou}n kallw& pize, mh_ gunai=ka. e0kei/nh fu&sei lei/a ge/gone kai trufera&: ka2n e1xh tri/xaj polla&j, te/raj e0sti kai e0n toi=j te/rasin e0n 9Rw&mh dei/knutai. tou~to d' e0p' a)ndro&j e0sti to_ mh_ e1xein: ka2n men fu&sei mh_ e1xh , te/raj e0sti/n, a2n d' au)to_j e9autou~ e0kko&pth kai a)poti/llh , ti/ au)to_n poih&swmen; pou~ au)to_n dei/cwmen kai ti/ progra&ywmen; ‘dei/cw u(mi=n a1ndra, o4j qe/lei ma~llon gunh_ ei]nai h2 a)nh&r ’. Are you a man or a woman? A man. Then adorn yourself as a man, not as a woman. A woman is naturally smooth and delicate, and if hairy, is a monster, and shown among the monsters at Rome. It is the same thing in a man not to be hairy; and if he is by nature not so, he is a monster. But if he depilates himself, what shall we do with him? … Of what have you to accuse your nature, sir, that it has made 771
Phyntis, On Women’s Temperance. Text is Stob. 4.23.61a = Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 153. Translation from Gutherie, The Complete Pythagoras. 772
Andrew R. Dyck, “Dressing to Kill: Attire as a Proof and Means of Characterization in Cicero’s Speeches,” Arethusa 34, no. 1 (2001): 119-30. 773
Sen. Helv. 16:3-6.
242 you a man? Why, were all to be born women, then? In that case what would have been the use of your finery? For whom would you have made yourself fine, if all were women? But the whole affair displeases you. Go to work upon the whole, then. Remove your manhood itself and make yourself a woman entirely, that we may be no longer deceived, nor you be half man, half woman. 774 Like Paul in Gal. 5:12, Epictetus suggests that men go all the way and castrate themselves if they want to pretend that they are something that they are not.775
Silence in Worship: 1 Cor. 14:33b-5 It appears that Paul again regulates the activity of women in worship in chapter 14. While Paul affirms in chapter 11 the activity of prophesying women in worship as long as their heads are covered, women are to be silent during the prophetic activity of the church. Several interpreters have attempted to resolve this apparent contradiction. First, interpreters have questioned whether or not this teaching is Pauline and a later interpolation. 776 P. B. Payne has been a consistent voice for text-critical argument that
774
Epict. Disc. 3.1.
775
Fredrik Ivarsson, 'Vice Lists and Deviant Masculinity: The Rhetorical Function of 1 Corinthians 5:10-11 and 6:9-10,' in Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, ed. Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 180. 776
Principally P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor. 14.34-5,” NTS 41 (1995): 240-62; C. Niccum, “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor. 14.34-5,” NTS 43 (1997): 242-55; D. W. Odell-Scott, “Editorial Dilemma: The Interpolation of 1 Cor 14.34-35 in the Western Manuscripts of D, G, and 88,” BTB 30 (2000): 68-74; J. Edward Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26, no. 2 (2003): 217-236.
243 there is a gap in the text from the end of 1 Cor. 14:33 to verse 36.777 Payne summarizes the rationale for the exclusion of the text by comparing it to John 7:53-8.1: 1. In both, the doubtful verses occur at different locations in the text. 2. Manuscripts of both display a high concentration of textual variations. 3. Both contain word usage atypical of the book’s author. 4. In both, the doubtful verses disrupt the narrative or topic of the passage. 5. In both, marginal symbols or notes indicate scribal awareness of a textual problem. In particular, Vaticanus has a distigme at the beginning of both passages.778 Feminist scholars divide over the nature of 1 Cor. 14:33-5, with a few important scholars convinced by the textual arguments mentioned above. 779 The majority of feminist interpreters approach this text as Pauline. 780 Wire notes that the textual
777
Philip B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.345,” NTS 41, no. 2 (1995): 240-262; “Ms 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14:3435,” NTS 44, no. 1 (1998): 152-158; Philip B. Payne and P. Canart, “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus,” NovT 42 (2000): 105-13; cf. bibliography and discussion in Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 234-6. 778
Payne, Man and Woman, 235.
779
W. Munro, Authority in Peter and Paul: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and I Peter, SNTS MS 45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). See also: “Patriarchy and Charismatic Community in ‘Paul,’” in Women and Religion: 1972 AAR Proceedings, ed. Judith Plaskow, et al. (Missoula, MT: American Academy of Religion, 1973), 141-159; “Woman, Text and Canon: The Strange Case of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35,” BTB 18 (1988) 26-31; “Interpolation in the Epistles: Weighing Probability,” NTS 36 (1990) 431-443; Jouette M. Bassler, “1 Corinthians,” The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. London Ringe (Westminster: John Knox, 1992). 780
E. H. Pagels, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” JAAR 42 (1974): 544; Marlene Crüsemann, “Irredeemably Hostile to Women: Anti-Jewish Elements in the Exegesis of the Dispute about Women’s Right to Speak (1 Cor. 14.3435),” trans. Brian McNeil, JSNT 79 (2000): 27; Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, In Memory
244 approaches that critics use to exclude 1 Cor. 14:34-5 from the original text come from one widely copied family of manuscripts. The Latin traditions, however, include 1 Cor. 14:34-5 in its canonical position, indicating that it is old enough and strong enough to be what Paul actually wrote.781 Once the issue of authenticity is settled, the reading of the text is straightforward. If the text is authentic, the primary issue obviously is the question of its relationship with 1 Cor. 11. However, the arguments that 1 Cor. 14:33-5 is a non-Pauline interpolation withstand all counter-arguments. The presence of the verses in the manuscripts demonstrates that the scribes knew of the textual problems. Combined with the nonPauline vocabulary, all other points are secondary and make the central argument all the more convincing. Since the text is not Pauline, it says nothing about the presence or role of philosophically educated women in Corinth.
Summary of Conclusions In this chapter, I have discussed the philosophical heritage of classical and Roman Corinth and examined the social conditions of the Pauline community there in order to demonstrate that it had ideal conditions for the presence of philosophically educated women. These conditions included the presence of wealthy, powerful, and high status persons in Corinth who supported philosophical schools that had a heritage of philosophically educated women, the wide exchange of philosophical ideas at the of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 230-33; Caroline Vander Stichele, “Is Silence Golden? Paul and Women’s Speech in Corinth,” Louvain Studies 20 (1995): 241-53. 781
Wire, Women Prophets, 149-53.
245 Isthmian games, the presence of all the popular schools during the Roman period, and a long history of philosophical interest since the pre-Socratics to long after the first century CE. The city of Corinth had always been a city that was tolerant of the popular philosophies that are covered in this dissertation: Pythagoreanism, Cynicism, Platonism, Stocism, and Epicureanism and their first century incarnations. The Isthmian games attracted philosophers from all of these schools for oratory and debate, and Corinth produced many Cynics and Stoics. Moreover, I have argued that the Pauline community could sustain the presence of philosophically educated women. The Christian community in Corinth was socially stratified, having both poor and wealthy participants. This is significant because the strongest signifier of the availability of education and the presence of philosophically educated women is wealth. To show this social stratification, I examined the Corinthians mentioned in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Acts for indicators of wealth. These indicators include holding public office, being a public benefactor, participating in the public court system, and owning a household. I dismissed Erastus’s office as an indicator of wealth, status, and power, but Crispus’s position as a synagogue leader probably does mean that he is wealthy - if Acts is reliable on this point. The situation concerning the unnamed woman who was in a sexual relationship with her step-son may have caused lawsuits with other wealthy members of the community. The householders Gaius and Stephanas, along with Phoebe were most likely patrons of the church. I dismissed the criterion of travel as an indicator of wealth because both elites and non-elites in the Roman world were able to travel, and it was uncomfortable and dangerous for everyone. Finally, the instructions concerning headcoverings speak not only to women prophets in their social and theological contexts, but
246 also to philosophically educated patronesses. The higher status women may cover or uncover their heads for differing theological and social reasons, but Paul presents a redemptive, fictive equalizing message: all women should cover their heads and all men should uncover their heads in worship. The importance of this chapter is to demonstrate that philosophers in Corinth were active in the first century, and many women in the Pauline community were in the perfect social situation to receive a philosophical education. This would include women in the households of Gaius and Stephanas, Phoebe, and the unnamed step-mother in chapter 5. If one of these householders had an interest in one or more of the various philosophical schools that were active in Corinth in the first century, any members of the household would have had access to a philosophical education. These members would include wives, sisters, daughters, slaves, freedpersons, and clients. In the next three chapters, I will apply these concepts to three important situations that are addressed in 1 Corinthians: self-sufficiency and Paul’s usage of the agon motif, friendship and patronage and Paul’s relationships with people who were connected to the patronage systems in Corinth, and teachings concerning marriage that Paul applies to worship regulations.
CHAPTER 5: PATRONAGE AND PHILOSOPHICALLY EDUCATED WOMEN
In chapters 5, 6, and 7, I will shift the focus from the question of context (does the situation in Corinth support the presence of philosophically educated women?) to reading 1 Corinthians with philosophically educated women. In chapter 1, I discussed the various efforts by New Testament scholars to identify and interpret parallels between Paul and the popular philosophers. While these studies established relationships between Paul and philosophy, they did not expand to philosophically educated women. In chapter 2, I argued that philosophically educated women fit into a broader context of educated and active women including poets, physicians, merchants, and activity in education. Furthermore, these women received their education in the household, learning from their fathers, husbands, or teachers in the home. I reviewed the history of women in philosophy in chapter 3, giving attention also to how these women learned and what they believed. In chapter 4, I discussed the nature of philosophy in Corinth and the social contexts of philosophically educated women in the Corinthian churches. The household context is of great importance for the education of women because some relationship to wealth is the single most reliable indicator that education was at least available to women. Therefore, I examined the history of philosophy in Corinth and argued that every philosophical school with a history of producing educated women has some connection with that city. Moreover, I identified several households in the Corinthian church that could have facilitated the philosophical education of women:
247
248 Gaius, Stephanas, and Phoebe. There were also unnamed households that could have supported the education of women: those able to spend money on law suits, divorce, and head-coverings. These chapters have established that Paul’s writings interacted with the popular philosophies that both produced educated women and were present in Corinth, and the church provided an adequate context in which such women were found. Finally, the question remains, “how do we read 1 Corinthians with philosophically educated women?” To address this question, I have chosen three widely discussed issues in popular moral philosophers that would be basic knowledge for women educated in any popular school and that have some resonance with content in 1 Corinthians: patronage in chapter 5, marriage and family in chapter 6, and the agon or contest motif in chapter 7. In chapter 5, I will examine how two philosophically educated women – Sophia and Fortuna - would interact with Paul’s notion of patronage. As wealthy widows, Sophia and Fortuna fit the best historical context for a broad philosophical education and patronesses of the church. Reading selections of 1 Corinthians with these two women will produce both complementary and contrasting understandings according to Paul’s persuasiveness and their philosophical sympathies. As the material above indicates, most philosophically educated women were either wealthy or attached to wealthy households. Because of this history, it is safe to imagine that if philosophically educated women were somehow connected to Paul’s Corinthian community, they would be patronesses of the churches. Paul’s interaction with philosophically educated women and the men that they influenced could therefore determine possible meeting places for followers, legal representation, monetary support, and the various other benefits that patronesses bestowed on their clients. These
249 patronesses are unmentioned in the epistle because Paul does not want to appear controlled by them or unduly attached to them, but they are not invisible because their presence can be drawn out of the content of the letter. In 1 Corinthians, Paul the apostle interacts with his philosophically educated patronesses like a poet or philosopher who appeals to his inspired divine right to instruct, correct, admonish, and exhort both patronesses and persons in the church that these wealthy women influenced. At the outset, it appears that Paul threatens both sides of the patron/client relationships in Corinth by using his apostleship to instruct both the rich and poor of the community. This kind of behavior is somewhat expected from a Roman who values freedom and friendship, as well as a poet or philosopher who gives sharp rebuke to their patron. However, Paul is also careful to give adequate praise at the appropriate time (1 Cor. 1:39; 3:21-23). I will argue in this chapter that the philosophically educated patronesses of the Corinthian church valued Paul for his inspired speech and teaching, which allowed some toleration for frank (corrective) speech, but these patronesses would also value Paul’s dutiful praise.782
Philosophical Patronage Patronage was an important economic,783 legal,784 and social part of Roman life 785 during the time of Paul.786 Typically, the patron/client relationship existed between a
782
Cf., Kloppenborg, Voluntary Associations, 278.
783
See above, n. 94.
784
William Alexander Hunter, A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code, trans. J. Ashton Cross (London: Maxwell & Son, 1885),
250 wealthy, powerful, and influential person and a somewhat inferior person who did not possess the wealth, power, or influence needed to advance or simply exist in the Roman world. Most influential philosophers were a part of this system but their efforts were not always successful. For example, the philosophers Philodemus (c. 110-35 BCE) and Lucretius (c. 99-55 BCE) had a difficult time securing patrons. Lucretius had a tenuous relationship with Memmius787 and Philodemus enjoyed some support from Torquatus and
667-72; W. W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921), 145-6; Alan Watson, “Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae,” JRS 62 (1972): 100-105. 785
Cynthia Damon argues that the ‘parasites’ in Roman literature tells us something about patronage, “‘Greek Parasites’” and Roman Patronage,” HSCP 97, Greece in Rome: Influence, Integration, Resistance (1995): 181-195; for Romans discussing patronage and friendship see Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann, eds., The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1991), 166-83; Cynthia Damon, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997); Brenda Longfellow, Roman Imperialism and Civic Patronage: Form, Meaning and Ideology in Monumental Fountain Complexes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 786
Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Lande and Laura Guasti, eds., Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); and Ernst Gellner and John Waterbury, eds., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duckworth, 1977); S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); John H. Elliott, “Patronage and Clientage,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996): 142-56; David De Silva, “Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament,” ATJ 31 (1999): 32-84; Alan B. Wheatley, Patronage in Early Christianity: Its Use and Transformation from Jesus to Paul of Samosata (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011). 787
John Stearns suggested that Lucretius originally was enthusiastic about his patron Memmius when he promised to construct a building for the Epicureans, and later Lucretius had a change of heart when Memmius reneged on his promise, “Lucretius and Memmius,” CW 25, no. 9 (1931): 67-68. It is also likely that Lucretius viewed his ‘patron’ Memmius with the same kind of derision as everyone else, see Duane W. Roller, “Gaius Memmius: Patron of Lucretius,” C Phil 65, no. 4 (1970): 246-248.
251 Cicero. 788 However, neither philosopher was able to attach himself to one patron. Such patronage was important, and wealthy philosophically educated women actively supported their intellectual interests. Two imperial women lavishly supported their philosophical interests. Pompeia Plotina (d. c. 122 CE), the wife of Trajan, was a well-known patron of the Epicureans. 789 She likely made more than one trip to Athens with Hadrian - or on her own - in which her study of philosophy could have taken place. 790 Plotina may have started out as a neoPythagorean due to a connection with Nicomachus of Gerasa791 and probably converted to Epicureanism later in life.792 The neo-Pythagorean Nicomachus of Gerasa wrote his
788
Walter Allen, Jr. and Phillip H. Delacy, “The Patrons of Philodemus,” C Phil 34, no. 1 (1939): 65. 789
P. M. Swan, “A Consular Epicurean under the Early Principate,” Phoenix 30, no. 1 (1976): 54-60; J. Ferguson, “Epicureanism Under the Roman Empire,” ANRW 2.36.4 (1990), 2257-2327; R. Hanslik, “Pompeia Plotina,” PW 21, no. 2, pages 22932298; H. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition; Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the Second Century B.C. to the Second Century A.D. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991). 790
Hanslik, “Pompeia Plotina,” 200.
791
Hemelrijk suggests that Plotina employed Nicomachus as a teacher before he wrote his Enchiridion, “thn de a0rxhn e0kei=qe/n poqen poih/somai r9a?/onoj e3neka parakolouqh/sewj, o3qen kai h9ni/ka e0chgou/mhn soi peri au0tw=n tou/twn thn th=j didaskali/aj e0poihsa/mhn a0rxh/n,” “But now, to make my exposition easier to follow, I shall begin from the same place where I began my instruction to you in person.” MSG 238.12-15; translation in A. Barker, Greek Musical Writings, vol. 2: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 792
James H. Oliver, “The Empress Plotina and the Sacred Thymelic Synod,” Historia 24, no. 1 (1975): 125-128; cf., Swan, “A Consular Epicurean,” 57; Mary T. Boatwright, “The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century A.C.,” AJPh 112, no. 4 (1991): 513-540.
252 Enchiridion at the request of an unnamed patroness, often identified as Plotina.793 In 121 CE she petitioned Hadrian, whose education she oversaw, requesting on behalf of the Epicurean Pompillius Theotimus to exempt the school from the government appointment of the head of the school.794 If Plotina was not a neo-Pythagorean or an Epicurean, she was certainly an important patroness of both schools, with an interest in learning philosophy and championing its causes. Julia Domna (170-217 CE) was a part of a philosophic circle. The members of this literary/intellectual circle may have included Aelius Antipater (sophist/rhetorician), Philostratus (sophist/biographer), Serenus Sammonicus (polymath), Dio Cassius (historian), Asinius Quadratus (historian), and perhaps Philiscus (sophist), Papinian (jurist), Ulpian (jurist), Paulist (jurist), and Galen (physician/philosopher).795 Julia herself enjoyed participating in the learned discussions with these intellectuals.796 She commissioned the sophist Philostratus (c. 170-250 CE) to write the biography of the neo-
793
William C. McDermott, “Plotina Augusta and Nicomachus of Gerasa,” Historia 26, no. 2 (1977): 192-203. 794
CIL 3.12283 (stele found at Athens in 1890). For the Greek letter see SIG 2 834. For a full text see E. Mary Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): no. 442. All three are translated in Bernard Henderson, Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian (London: Methuen, 1903), 50-2. 795
Barbara Levick, Julia Domna, Syrian Empress (London: Routledge, 2007), 114; cf., G. W. Bowersock who thinks that the letter is inauthentic but provides valuable interpretative insights in “The Circle of Julia Domna,” in his Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1969), 101-09. 796
Bowerstock, “Julia Domna,” 103.
253 Pythagorean Apollonius of Tyana (c. 15-100 CE).797 Philostratus tells us the story of how a certain Damis came to be supported by Julia Domna: e0ge/neto Da&mij a)nh_r ou)k a1sofoj th_n a)rxai/an pote oi0kw~n Ni=non: ou{toj tw ~ 0Apollwni/w prosfilosofh&saj a)podhmi/aj te au)tou~ a)nage/grafen, w{n koinwnh~sai kai au)to&j fhsi, kai gnw&maj kai lo&gouj kai o(po&sa e0j pro&gnwsin ei]pe. kai prosh&kwn tij tw ~ Da&midi ta_j de/ltouj tw~n u(pomnhma&twn tou&twn ou1pw gignwskome/naj e0j gnw~sin h1gagen 0Iouli/a th ~ basili/di. mete/xonti de/ moi tou~ peri au)th_n ku&klou—kai ga_r tou_j r(htorikou_j pa&ntaj lo&gouj e0ph &nei kai h)spa&zeto—metagra&yai te prose/tace ta_j diatriba_j tau&taj kai th~j a)paggeli/aj au)tw~n e0pimelhqh~nai… There was a man, Damis, by no means stupid, who formerly dwelt in the ancient city of Nineveh. He resorted to Apollonius in order to study wisdom, and having shared, by his own account, his wanderings abroad, wrote an account of them. And he records his opinions and discourses and all his prophesies. And a certain kindsman of Damis drew the attention of the empress Julia to the documents hitherto unknown. Now I belonged to the circle of the empress, for she was a devoted admirer of all rhetorical exercises; and she commanded me to recast and edit these essays… 798 Philostratus also wrote a letter to Julia Domna that reveals her interest in Plutarch and possibly Platonism (Ep. 73).799 In this letter, Philostratus exhorts Julia Domna (170-217 CE) to persuade Plutarch (46-120 CE) not to be angry with the sophists, perhaps in response to her reading of Plutarch’s Gorgias or another lost work. Obviously, she could not persuade Plutarch of anything because he had died half a century before she was born. Philostratus’s lack of concern for chronology does not threaten the letter’s
797
Dio Cass. 77.18.4; cf., Vita Alexandri 29.2; Maria Dzielska Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History, trans. Pior Pieńkowski (Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1986), 56-60, 174. 798 799
Philostr. V S 1.3.
Robert J. Penella, “Philostratus’ Letter to Julia Domna,” Hermes 107, no. 2 (1979): 161-168; cf., Graham Anderson, “Putting Pressure on Plutarch: Philostratus Epistle 73,” C Phil 72, no. 1 (1977), 43-45. Philostratus also wrote a letter to Epictetus, no. 65.
254 authenticity. Philostratus would not choose a friend of Julia’s to express this idea because “it is part of a strategy to establish a communality of feeling and opinion between Julia, himself, and his readers.”800 Philostratus is responding to a work by Plutarch that threatened to sway her against sophists, which comprised a good portion of her intellectual friends. The best reading of this exhortation is “Do not let Plutarch persuade you to be angry with the sophists.”801 If this interpretation is correct, then Philostratus’s statement seems to be in jest or sarcastic because of Julia’s consistent favor towards the great sophists of her time. In this section, we looked at the philosophical support of women at the very top of Roman society: the wife of the Emperor Trajan (53-117 CE), Pompeia Plotina (d. c. 122 CE), and the wife of the Emperor Septimius Severus (145-211 CE), Julia Domna (170217 CE). Pompeia supported both neo-Pythagorean and Epicurean causes. Julia Domna’s interests were very broad: she participated in a philosophical circle that included the brightest minds of her day. These two women serve as a starting point for the examination of non-imperials in and near Corinth who supported their intellectual and political interests.
800
Luc Van der Stockt, “‘Never the Twain Shall Meet?’ Plutarch and Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius: Some Themes and Techniques,” in Theios Sophistes Electronic: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, ed. Kristoffel Demoen and Danny Praet (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 191. 801
Bowersock, Greek Sophists, 101-09.
255 Patronage in 1 Corinthians Just as a young aristocrat can gain wealth and power through moving up to more distinguishing offices of the city, the city of Corinth itself moved from “colony” to “free city”802 with astonishing speed. The close relationship with Rome doubtlessly helped both the city itself and its elite move up through the ranks. Many dedicatory inscriptions in Corinth indicate some relationship to the imperial family. 803 Patrons in first century Corinth804 include (but are not limited to) Erastus the aedile (discussed above in 4.6.5), Gn. Babbius Philinus, 805 Tiberius Claudius Dinippus,806 L. Castricius Regulus,807 T.
802
Paul A. Gallivan dates the liberation of Corinth in 67 CE, “Nero’s Liberation of Greece,” Hermes 101, no. 2 (1973): 230-234. 803
Chow, Patronage and Power, 44.
804
Antony J.S. Spawforth, “Roman Corinth: The Formation of a Colonial Elite,” Proceedings of the International Colloquium organized by the Finnish Institute and the Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens 7-9 September 1993 (Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1996), 167-82. 805
L. R. Dean, “Latin Inscriptions from Corinth II,” AJA 23, no. 2 (1919): 168-70. Babbius most likely is the patron who reconstructed the Southeast Building, and his son refurbished it. Oscar Broneer, “Investigations at Corinth, 1946-1947,” Hesperia 16, no. 4 (1947): 233-247. Gn. Babbius Philinus also payed for a building in the western forum, Mary C. Sturgeon, “Dedications of Roman Theaters,” ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2004): 27, 28, and 123; for his career, R. L. Scranton, “The Corinth of the Apostle Paul,” Emory University Quarterly 5 (1949), 73. 806
L. R. Dean, “Latin Inscriptions from Corinth,” AJA 22, no. 2 (1918): 189-197; Giles Standing, “The Claudian Invasion of Britain and the Cult of Victoria Britannica,” Britannia 34 (2003): 281-288; Barry N. Danylak, “Tiberius Claudius Dinippus and the Food Shortages in Corinth,” TynB 59 no. 2 (2008): 231-270. 807
Strabo 8.6.22; Kent, 70-72, nos. 152,153; Elizabeth Gebhard, “The Isthmian Games and the Sanctuary of Poseidon in the Early Empire,” in The Corinthia in the Roman Period, ed. Timothy E. Gregory, 78-94, JRASup 8 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993b); cf., Mary E. Hoskins Walbank, “Aspects of Corinthian Coinage in
256 Manlius Juvencus,808 Herodes Atticus (mentioned above), Lucius Gellius Menander,809 and Junia Theodora (discussed below). John K. Chow’s analysis of 1 Corinthians indicates that patron / client relationships may be behind many problems in the Christian community at Corinth, including Paul’s apostleship, eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul’s clarification of his relationship to patronage, and the problem of unity in the church. 810 Paul’s presentation of himself as apostle asserts the divine authority that he needs to admonish the church’s patrons (1 Cor. 1:1, 16:22). The civic rites in which some of the Corinthians participated, and which sacrificial meat was likely offered could have been dedicated to the Roman emperor, the ultimate patron (1 Cor. 10). Paul defends his apostleship against patrons who may have been investigating him, claiming that he serves God alone – not the Corinthians or himself (1 Cor. 4:1-5). Paul further defends himself in 1 Cor. 9:1-23,
the Late 1st and early 2nd Centuries A.C.,” Corinth 20, Corinth, The Centenary: 18961996 (2003): 337-349. 808
Arrian 1.1; Allen Brown West, et al, “Latin Inscriptions, 1896-1926,” Corinth 8, no. 2, Latin Inscriptions, 1896-1926 (1931): iii-v+vii-ix+xi+xiii-xiv+1-141+143145+147-171. 809
James Wiseman, “Excavations in Corinth, the Gymnasium Area, 1967-1968,” Hesperia 38, no. 1 (1969): 64-106. 810
Bruce Winter focuses on the civil litigation in 1 Cor. 6.1-11, social mobility in 1 Cor. 7.17, civic rights 1 Cor. 8-11.1, Seek the Welfare of the City, 105-118; 145-63; and 165-74; Jerome H. Neyrey, Render to God: New Testament Understanding of the Divine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004): 144-90; J. Brian Tucker,”Baths, Baptism, and Patronage: The Continuing Role of Roman Social Identity in Corinth,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation, ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker, LNTS 428 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 173-88.
257 refusing to accept payment (misqo/j) that patrons normally owe their inferiors.811 Yet Paul’s teaching that the church is a body (1 Cor. 12:18-29) supports the patronage system because it reinforces the current social and economic makeup of the community. 812 The metaphor of the unity of the body and its parts was often used by ancient writers to support the extreme social distance between the rich and the poor.813 In 1 Cor. 16:22, Paul utilizes friendship language that has patronal overtones,814 and perhaps this is intentional as filei=n appears only here in the Pauline corpus. Chow goes on to argue that many of the problems in the Corinthian church are rooted in strained patronal relationships. Paul’s refusal to accept money (1 Cor. 9:1-27), the possible wealth of the litigants in court (1 Cor. 6:1-8), the issue with the step-mother (the man was seeking power and influence through the sexual relationship in 1 Cor. 5:1-5), and the situation with disunity related to the problem of idol food (8:1-11:1) all point to disruptions in relationships between patrons and the church. There is another factor to consider with respect to the relationships between Paul and his patronesses: the organization of the church. If the church can be somewhat
811
Chow, Patronage, 173. Cf., Hock, Social Context, 61; Bruce Winter, “The Public Honoring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2.14-15,” JSNT 34 (1988): 87-103. 812
Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 143-50. 813
Chow, Patronage and Power, 176; Sen. Clem. 1.3.5; 1.4.3; 1.5.1 (the Emperor is the head); cf., Plut. Mor. 478d, 797e; Philo. Praem. 125; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.104-7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.86.2. 814
50, 154-6.
John 19:12; Marshall, Emnity, 131; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 148-
258 likened to a collegia,815 then the support of the collegia by patronesses might provide some understanding for the dynamics between the patronesses of the church and Paul. The Corinthian community shares several similarities with the collegia: patronal support, a high population of freedmen, and high ranking offices held by long-term members.816 Robert Wilken has noted that Pliny the Younger (c. 61-112 CE, Ep. 10.96) interpreted the early Christian groups as voluntary associations.817 Similarly, Celsus (fl. 2nd CE) asserted that Christianity had no right to exist as a voluntary association because of its secret nature.818 In chapters 38-9 of his Apologeticum, Tertullian (c. 160-225 CE) argued that churches of his time should be regarded as collegia, indicating that there was still a
815
Corin Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance Toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 101; cf., Robert L. Wilken, “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology,” in Catacombs and Colosseum: Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity, ed. Stephen Benko and O’Rourke (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971), 268-91; Peter Richardson, “Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996), 90-109; Kwon, Oh-Young, “Discovering the Characteristics of collegia: colegia sodalicia and collegia tenuiorum in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and 15,” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 32 no. 2 (2010): 166-182; John S. Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch, Churches and collegia,” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Christianity and Judaism (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 212-238; B. H. McLean, “The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Church Formation,” in Origins and Method, 239-70; John S. Kloppenborg, “Collegia and thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson (London: Routledge, 1996), 16-30; Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community, 154-7. 816
Bengt Holmberg, “The Methods of Historical Reconstruction in the Scholarly Recovery of Corinthian Christianity,” Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, 266. 817
Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 32.
818
Origen, Contra Celsus 1.1; 8.17, 47. Cf., Wilken, “Collegia,” 282.
259 struggle for Christians to be accepted by their peers. 819 However, in my opinion, the earliest churches lacked the organizational structure of the collegia: (1) they often incorporated persons who shared a common trade or craft being thus more homogeneous in terms of status; (2) they engaged in common meals which were graced with the oratory of guest rhetors and provided the necessary context trade for socio-economic advancement; (3) they participated in rituals and cultic activities; and (4) they were able to function because of the beneficence of wealthier persons who acted as patrons.820 While Christian practices and organization had not yet solidified, the wealthy women of the church who supported other collegia may have interacted with Paul and the church within a similar framework.
Junia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora Junia Theodora, doubtless a Corinthian of higher status and greater wealth than anyone in the early church, served as patroness for many cities in Lycia in the first century. She is significant for this study because Junia is the only woman from first century Corinth that is honored as prostatis, the same term that Paul uses for Phoebe (Rom. 16:2). A similar patroness, Claudia Metrodora, is important because she serves as a parallel to Junia’s influence; however, the term prostatis does not appear in her dedicatory inscriptions. While these two women are of higher status than any woman that we would expect to find in the Pauline churches, their behavior as patronesses greatly illuminates our understanding of the situation in Corinth. These women were in
819
Wilken, “Collegia,” 283-6.
820
Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship, 101.
260 control of their wealth and used it according to their political, intellectual, and economic interests. In 1954, a French archaeological team discovered a re-used stele in a late Roman tomb near Corinth with five inscriptions on it concerning the benefactions of Junia Theodora.821 Despite its importance in illuminating the world of Paul as a very intriguing piece of epigraphy, it has not received the scholarly attention or popular fame of other familiar inscriptions regarding important males such as Gallio,822 Erastus the aedile, and the possible epigraphic evidence of a synagogue823 in Corinth. R. A. Kearsley has provided the most recent edition of the text of the Junia Theodora inscriptions with several germinal comments regarding its importance for the study of women in the first century and its impact on New Testament studies.824 Junia Theodora received high honors from several Lycian cities: two from a federal assembly of the Lycian cities, Myra, Patara, and Telmessos. Junia protected the
821
Demetre I. Pallas, Seraphin Charitonidis, and Jacques Venencie, “Inscriptions,” BCH 83, no. 2 (1954): 496-508. In their original publication, the team does not offer a detailed interpretation of the importance of the find. SEG 18.143; Louis Robert, Opera Minora Selecta: Epigraphie et antiquités grecques (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1969), 2:840-848; Ch. Picard, “La donation de safran en l’honneur de la Corinthienne Junia Theodora. Décret de la Confédération lycienne,” RA 2 (1962): 95-97. 822
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, commentary 149-60, text 179-82.
823
James Wiseman, “Corinth and Rome 1: 228 BC-AD 267,” ANRW 2.7.1:438548 (pl. 5, no. 8). 824
R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life,” 189-211; cf., the summary and bibliography listed by Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 183; Van Bremen, Limits of Participation, 164 n. 73; 165 n. 78; 198 n. 11. Cf., Hans-Josef Klauck, “Junia Theodora und die Gemeinde von Korinth,” in Kirche und Volk Gottes. Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70, Hg. Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, Otto Merk, (Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 42-57.
261 Lycians when they rebelled against their governor. During this time of political transition, Junia’s home served as a safe haven for important Lycians. Junia also assisted several citizens of Myra, Patara, and Telmessos when they visited Corinth. We find in Junia Theodora a woman controlling her resources, interested in the political aspirations of the wealthy citizens of several Lycian cities, and willing to serve as their patroness. 825 It is significant that the Lycian cities that honor Junia are no strangers to honoring their female athletes, physicians, wives, office-holders, and patronesses.826 Junia Theodora is not to be placed among the mothers, wives, or concubines of the Emperors and Senators who famously (or infamously) influenced Roman history, but with her sisters who contributed to provincial Greek life by serving in the provinces as patrons (here we place priestesses and various office-holders), athletes, philosophers, and physicians. 827 Herodotus and other early witnesses tell us that Lycians were a matrilineal
825
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 82.
826
In his Epigraphica II, Pleket presents other inscriptions that concern the social activity of women in Lycia, several of which are presented above. For example, the physician Antiochis, mentioned above, is from Lycia (Pleket, Epigraphica, no. 12), then there is the chase Asë (Pleket, Epigraphica, no. 15) and the gymnasiarch Lalla of Arneae (Pleket, Epigraphica, no. 14). 827
The point that women of a more “normal” vein functioned as patrons in the Greek East and throughout the Empire is carefully argued by Reit van Bremen, “Images of Women and Antiquity,” in Women and Wealth, ed. Averil Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983), 223-42 and Ramsay MacMullen, “Women’s Power in the Principate,” in Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary, ed. Ramsay MacMullen (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 169-76.
262 society.828 However, the matrilineal nature of the Lycian cities does not indicate that they were matriarchal or that women there enjoyed more freedoms from abuse and neglect.829 One of the curiosities of the Junia Theodora inscription is its apotheosis motif: Tou= gegono/toj yhfi/smatoj filanqrw/pou kai stefanw/sewj xrusw?= kai a0naqe/sewj ei0ko/noj ei0j a0poqe/wsin meta thn [a0p]a[l]laghn I0ouni/a Qeodw/ra? katoikou/sh? par’ u9mei=n e0capesta/lkamen u9mei=n to a0ntigisa/menoi th=? dhmosi/a? sfragei=di o3pwj e[i1]dht[e] ta[u=ta]. By an honorific decree made in favor of Junia Theodora, living among you, it is voted to grant her both the crowning with a golden crown and the offering of a portrait for her deification after her death, and we have sent you a copy (of the decree) sealed with the public seal so as to inform you at the same time.830 The apotheosis motif was originally used to honor patronesses and patrons associated with the imperial cult, but the term became so popular in funerary inscriptions that it means simply “buried.”831 However, in Junia Theodora’s case, the apotheotic formula is clearly an honor intended to persuade her to continue her many benefactions. The inscription from Telmessos reads “and invite her, living with the same intentions, to always be the author of some benefit towards us, well knowing that in return our city recognises and will acknowledge the evidence of her goodwill,” “parakalei=n te au0thn me/nousan e0p[i] th=j a0uth=j u9pos[ta/sewj] a0ei/ tinoj a0gaqou= paraiti/an gei/nesqai pa=sin h9mei=n ei0dui=an o3t[i kai h9 po/lij] h9mw=n eu0xa/ristoj a0podw/si au0th=? pa/lin taj 828
Herodotus 1.173; Plut. Mor. 428d; Simon Pembroke, “List of the Matriarchs: A Study of the Inscriptions of Lycia,” JESHO 8, no. 3 (1965): 217; cf., Plut. Lyc. 14-16. 829
Simon Pembroke, “Women in Charge: The Function of Alternatives in Early Greek Tradition and the Ancient Idea of Matriarchy,” JWI 30 (1967): 5. 830
A Letter of the Federal Assembly to Corinth Introducing a Second Decree in Favor of Junia Theodora, ll. 43-6. Text and translation in Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 208. 831
Max Radin, “Apotheosis,” CR 30, no. 2 (1916): 44-6.
263 kaqhko[u/saj] marturi/aj.832 These inscriptions were presented to Junia and her heir, both are explicitly said to be living: Junia (from Lycian cities, no. 1 ll. 1-2; the second Lycian inscription “living among you,” “katoikou/sh? par’ u9mei=n e0capesta,” no. 4, l. 45) and Sextus Iulius (who will receive one of the inscriptions from the Lycian federal assembly, no. 4 l. 53). One important parallel to this honor is the apotheotic image on the Arch of the Sergii. The Roman patroness Salvia Postuma funded the building of an arch in Pula, Croatia in the first century BCE. Scholars still debate the significance of the monument.833 Importantly for our purposes, Magaret Woodhull discusses the scene of apotheosis on Salvia Postuma’s arch and the significance of her patronage. Woodhull’s basic argument is intriguing: By inclusion on the Arch of the Sergii, the panel implied for its viewer that the Sergii deserved to be honored with apotheosis for lifetime accomplishments marked by their civic and military deeds noted in the inscriptions. They were, in effect, heros of the town. Moreover, the apotheotic iconography functioned kinetically within the monument’s design to activate a theatrical dramatization of this event: approaching the arch, the viewer would first see the portraits; then, moving in closer, she would read the inscriptions accrediting civic and military valour; finally, passing under the arch, she would look up and note the eagle in the soffit, wings spread, ‘bearing’ the figures just seen on the arch’s attic heavenwards. The arch’s continual use recreated the moment of apotheosis each time a person passed through the arch. Much as Augustus had joined the tutelary gods at Rimini, here Salvia made her family, now members of a heavenly realm, perpetual guardians of her fellow citizens. 834 832
A Decree of the Lycian City of Telmessos, no. 5 ll. 83-5. Text and translation from Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 209-10. 833
This debate is presented in detail with photographs by Magaret L. Woodhull, “Matronly Patrons in the Early Roman Empire,” in Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization, ed. Fiona McHardy and Eireann Marshall (New York: Routledge, 2004), 7591. 834
Woodhull, “Matronly Patrons,” 89.
264 Woodhull argues that Salvia Postuma’s apotheosis is implied by the apotheotic symbolism and her dedication of the arch, which makes the explicit apotheosis of Junia Theodora even more impressive. Claudia Metrodora was an influential patroness in Asia Minor. R. A. Kearsley presents text, translation, and commentary along with discussion of Metrodora’s importance to the Pauline community via Phoebe.835 Like Junia Theorda, Metrodora received honors from various cities for her patronage: three inscriptions in six fragments are extant from Chios,836 another honorific inscription made by a private group,837 and a building in Ephesus preserves her memory.838 Metrodora held the office of stephanephros twice, gymnasiarch four times, agonothete three times, named queen of the thirteen cities of the Ionian federation, and priestess for life of Aphrodite Livia.839 She gave oil to the city twice for the Heraclean games and erected and dedicated a building along with her husband (whose name does not survive in the inscription).840 Kearsley convincingly argues that the various offices and gifts to the city are credited to
835
R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life,” 189-211. Text and translation for Junia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora also appear in Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 205-11. 836
(Paris: Champion, 1938), 128-33. 837
J. & L. R
REG 69 (1956): 152-53, no. 213.
838
R. Meric et al, eds., Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Inschriften griechischer, Stadte aus Kleinasien 17.1 (Habelt: Bonn, 1981), 7.1, no. 3003. 839
Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 210.
840
Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 211.
265 Metrodora herself – and not to her tutor or male relatives – indicates that Metrodora controlled her property and used it to advance her interests.841 The epigraphic evidence indicates that some women in the Greek East were active and influential in urban life. Junia Theodora’s inscriptions indicate that several cities in Lycia had a positive relationship with Corinth and that the Lycians were no strangers to honoring important women for their various contributions. A woman of Junia Theodora’s wealth, power, and influence is by no means singular: Claudia Metrodora is a parallel example from Chios.
Pleasing the Patroness: Literary Patronage as Pattern We have seen in the patronesses of philosophy that their philosopher-clients often wrote and dedicated works to them. These philosophers did not fill their works with excessive praise for the patroness and there is no indication that the patroness, while very rich and powerful, controlled the philosopher’s every word and thought. It is possible then that Paul could be dependent on one or more patron/patroness for both himself and the churches and still retain his apostolic authority and freedom. In this section, I will explore literary patronage as a clue for understanding Paul’s relationship with his named and unnamed patrons. I will argue that the interpretative key for this issue lies in what Paul’s patroness expects from him and the liberalities he can take (such as corrective, frank speech) as an apostle without jeopardizing the relationship.
841
Kearsley, Women in Public Life, 200-1. Cf., Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 182; Dutch, Educated Elite, 143; Jorunn Økland, Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 293.
266 A writer - especially a good one - possessed the unique ability to immortalize their patrons in either a positive or a negative light.842 The most important similarity between Paul and the poets is they both understand themselves to be inspired by the divine. However, despite the declaration of independence due to inspiration, both the poet and Paul give the obligatory praise and thanksgivings to their patrons in return for services rendered and desired (1 Cor. 1:3-9; 3:21-23). 843 Paul’s divine inspiration is expressed in his roles as a genuine apostle: preaching the word of God, correcting loose morals, being a model for imitation, and giving instructions from God for the community.844 In the following subsections, I will argue that if a patron was to delve too deeply into the business of the apostle or of writing (in the case of the poet), both Paul and the poets would declare freedom by means of the written word – a power that few other clients were fortunate enough to possess.
842
Direct eulogy was not necessary to immortalize patrons and fulfill this obligation. A favorite technique of the Roman writers was to pass the task of praise on to someone else, M. L. Clarke, “Poets and Patrons at Rome,” G&R 251, no. 1 (1978), 48. For Paul, see John K. Chow when he discusses the special nature of literary patronage in “Patronage in Roman Corinth,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, ed. Richard Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 121; discussion of what patrons would provide churches, 124. 843
Dio Chrys. 1.30; 13.21; 31.14, 65. “Dio Chrysostom is especially indignant at people being ungrateful towards benefactors,” Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 41. Sen. Ben. 23: “The ungrateful [person] tortures and torments [her or] himself; [she or] he hates the gifts which [she or] he has received. And what is more wretched than a [person] who forgets [her or] his benefits and clings to [her or] his injuries?” 844
Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 262-3; Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul, One of the Prophets?: A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding, WUNT 2.45 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 115; Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, WUNT 2.75 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995); cf. Johan Vos, “Rhetoric and Theology in the Letters of Paul,” in Paul and Rhetoric, ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 176.
267 The Poet and the Apostle As an apostle, Paul participates in reciprocal friendships. While Paul did not normally ask for gifts for himself, he did maintain relationships with benefactors and patrons of many cities as part of his missionary strategy. 845 Unlike many philosophers and poets, and indeed other apostles, Paul did not attach himself to the house of any of his patrons or the patrons of the house-churches, instead choosing to work with his hands, doing the work of a tent-maker.846 What Paul did expect in return for his work as an apostle was faithfulness to his message (1 Cor. 1:21, 2:11-16; 3:1-3, 16-17; 9:24-7; 14:36-8; especially 15:2) and the imitation of his character (1 Cor. 4:15-21; 11:1) from the entire believing community as well as other critical benefits from those of higher status (support of himself, which he did not accept, 1 Cor. 9:1-19; a place to meet for the Lord’s Supper, provision of food and drink, 1 Cor 11:17-34; giving money 1 Cor. 16:13). Most poets needed patrons in order to survive,847 and the relationships they had with their patrons are similar to Paul. Literary clients needed resources, defense in court and from other forms of attack, and the means needed to pursue their art. One of the
845
Meeks, Urban Christians, 58-9; MacDonald and Harrington, Colossians and Ephesians (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 166. 846
Peter Lampe’s study confirms that Paul and others could support themselves as tentmakers, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 187, and therefore Paul and his co-workers could work independently of personal patrons; cf., Hock, Tentmaking and Apostleship, 29, 65; Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking,” 558. 847
A. Dalzell, “Maecenas and the Poets,” Phoenix 10, no. 4 (1956): 151; cf. Barbara Gold, Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1987), 3.
268 features that make Paul’s writings unique is that he maintained relationships with several newly founded groups by utilizing the epistle. 848 He used this common tool in an uncommon way, writing to create and maintain identity849 within these new groups which needed patrons in order to survive.850 Paul expected patrons to provide a meeting place for the house-churches, read the letters to the community, defend Paul’s integrity and teaching,851 and provide financial support for the church (1 Cor. 16:1-3; the support is not for himself, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 9:11-18 and 2 Cor. 11:7-10). Patrons expected, and indeed needed praise, flattery, and/or otherwise have their beneficence reciprocated by the apostle.
848
Abraham Malherbe concludes that there is no exact analogy for Paul’s use of the epistle as maintaining a newly created community, Social Aspects, 48. The closest analogy in my opinion is the administration of the Roman army and interests, which in part used letters as illustrated by Ael. Ep. 30, “There is therefore no need for [the Emperor] to wear himself out by journeying over the whole empire, nor by visiting different people at different times to confirm individual matters, whenever he enters their land. But it is very easy for him to govern the whole inhabited world by dispatching letters without moving from the spot. And the letters are almost no sooner written than they arrive, as if borne by winged messengers.” Translation from The Complete Works, trans. Charles A. Behr (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 80. Aristides describes in detail some of these letters (noting that he received special treatment due to his practice in oration) in 50.71-93, which P. W. van der Horst identifies as parallel to Romans 16 in Aelius Aristides, 51. Aristides uses his special relationship with the gods to compose poetry (50.31) and because of his recognized skill in oratory he is able to persuade benefactors to give him what he wants (50.80-87). Cf. Collin Wells, The Roman Empire, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 234. 849
Philip Esler states that Paul by writing the epistle to the Romans is an “entrepreneur of identity,” Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 109. 850
Malherbe, Social Aspects, 61-91; Stanley Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26, no. 1 (1984): 66-8. 851
Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor 1:10-16; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Thess. 2:1-13.
269 Despite the fact that the church could not survive without patrons, Paul exercised his power to punish patrons that overstepped their role or otherwise failed in their duty to provide for the church and for Paul’s needs. One tool used by literary clients and Paul was the written curse.852 Paul utilizes the curse twice in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5.1-5; 16.22).853 In 1 Cor. 5:5, Paul instructs the Corinthians to eject the sinful man from the community, delivering his flesh over to Satan to be destroyed so that his soul might be saved. While the use of the curse in 1 Cor. 5:5 is not directed at a patron, it certainly demonstrates that Paul has the authority to call down a type of divine judgment on someone in the community. Furthermore, if the man had a relationship with a wealthy widow as I argued above in 4.5.3, the curse does effect a patroness by proxy and other wealthy persons in the community would have taken note. The other curse appears near the conclusion of the letter, where Paul marks unbelievers as enemies, plainly saying that they are cursed (1 Cor. 16:22). In both 1 Cor. 5:5 and 16:22, Paul utilizes the ancient generic curse form found in other curses at Corinth, which are characterized by a person invoking divine judgment or punishment on
852
Mary Beard argues that the power of a written curse adds to its potency, “The Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,” in Literacy in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. M. Humphery (Ann Arbor: JRA, 1991), 37. Paul wrote several of them: 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 16:22; Gal. 1:8; 3:10; cf. 2 Thess. 1:5-12. Cf. TDNT 1: 354. It is interesting that the curse in 1 Cor. 16:22 is in close proximity to the commendation of several patrons. Whether or not Paul actually cursed former benefactors of the church is not explicitly clear, although Chow identifies the sexually deviant man in 1 Cor. 5 as a patron, Patronage and Power, 123-30. Paul’s cursing activity certainly serves as a warning to the entire church to remain faithful to his message and character. 853
Gordon P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of Paul, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 142-55.
270 an enemy. 854 As such, the enemies are excluded from fellowship in the community. If Paul really did have the authority to cause the community to withdraw fellowship from a member, that indeed would be a powerful weapon to discipline partons. As stated above, the two most important features of writers855 that gave them special standing with their patrons is their divine inspiration and ability to immortalize their patrons. Both the poets856 and Paul857 openly claimed both of these powers, and used them decisively. 854
Although Bruce Winter focuses his discussion on Corinthian curses on 1 Cor. 12:3, he has a very useful bibliography and review of the archaeological evidence in After Paul Left Corinth, 164-79. 855
M. L. Clarke notes that Vitruvius’ work on architecture is dedicated to Augustus in response to being appointed to an important post and Quntilian’s Institutio is dedicated to his friend Marcellus Victorius. While Quintilian was writing the Insitutio, he was appointed to a post and inserted some adulatory remarks to Domitian in book 4, “Poets and Patrons at Rome,” n. 12. 856
The tradition of poetic inspiration is at least as old as Homer who describes poets as he does kings and princes in the Illiad. A very detailed discussion of the divine nature of poetry in Greek thought and its development in Roman thought is available in an article by Sperduti, “Divine Nature” 209-40. A few notes are useful here. Sperduti observes that Homer uses the same words (dioi=, qei=oi, diotrefe/ej, and diogene/ej) to describe poets, seers, and kings: Il. 1.176; 2.196, 445; Od. 1.65, 196, 284; 2.27, 233, 394; 3.121; 4.17; 621, 691; 8.87, 539; 16.252; 17.359; 23.133; 143. “As the sceptre of the king comes from Zeus and fillets are conferred upon holy men by Apollo, so, too, the words of the poets come from the gods,” Sperduti, “Divine Nature,” 209. Cf. Kathleen Freeman, “Plato: The Use of Inspiration,” G&R 49, no. 27 (1940): 137-49 and Murray, “Poetic Inspiration,” 87-100. 857
The tradition of Pauline inspiration is evident in but not limited to the nature of his description of his apostolic calling, the practice of blessing and cursing, apostolic prayers, the exercising of his apostolic office as giving the words of God, and the reading of the Pauline letters in worship. Udo Schnelle writes that Paul understood himself to be “one grasped by the pneu=ma” like the First Testament prophets, Paul, 159. Cf. Richard Longnecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary 41, ed. Ralph P. Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 30. The reading of the Pauline epistles likely takes the place of the reading of poetry or the discussion of philosophy in the Greco-Roman symposium after which the early Christian worship services are patterned. Cf. Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 138-9.
271 Horace: A Client like Paul I will now examine the relationship between Horace and Maecenas, which will serve as an example for how Paul might interact with his supporters. An important pattern will emerge: the value of the poet to his patron is the poet’s inspiration and this quality serves as an equalizing force, allowing the poet to be a friend and engage in corrective or frank speech. Horace is one of the many Roman poets of the Augustan age who were clients of Maecenas,858 an ideal literary patron.859 While Maecenas had many poets in his retinue, Horace is most attractive for this study because he garners more scholarly attention with regard to the relationship between Maecenas and his literary clients. All of Horace’s works are dedicated to Maecenas; the first book of the Sermones, Odes, and Poems include a statement of praise to him. Horace wanted Maecenas to be pleased with his work, which is indicative of the friendship that he sought to maintain. 860
858
Details about the life of Maecenas are available in Kenneth J. Reckford, “Horace and Maecenas,” TAPA 90 (1959): 195; Dalzell, “Maecenas,” 151-53; and Francis Holland, Seneca (London: Books for Libraries Press, 1969). The power of Maecenas is illustrated by his friendship with Augustus. Maecenas was an extravagant man, flirting with the wife of his host at dinner in Plut. Mor. 760A. Seutonius writes about Maecenas’ literary patronage, 10.93. Maecenas is widely mentioned in literature: Dio Cass. 49.6, 55.7; Vell. Pat. 2.88; Sen. Ep. 14.4, 114.6 and Theognis, Elegiae 1.27 and 114; Tac. Ann. 1.51. Cf., George Roberts Purnell, A Study of Roman Literary Patronage: with Special Reference to the Messalla Circle (Stanford: Stanford University, 1930); Phebe Lowell Bowditch, Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage (Berkely: University of California Press, 2001). 859
Dalzell, “Maecenas,” 151. Dalzell notes here the many other literary clients of
Maecenas. 860
Aristotle affirms that true friends are very intimate, “kai mi/an yuxh ei]nai toi=j a0lhqwj fi/loj,” “True friends are one spirit,” Eth. Eud. 7.1240b.3. (Rackham, LCL). Aristotle goes on to say that in such closeness two people want to both live and
272 This desire is explicit in Satire 1.10.81, “Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque/ Valgius et probet haec Octavius optimus atque/ Fuscus et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque/ ambitione relegata,” “Let but Plotius and Varius approve of these verses; let Maecenas, Virgil, and Valgius; let Octavius and Fuscus, best of men; and let but the Viscus bothers give their praise!” According to Suetonius, who preserves the verses from Maecenas dedicated to Horace, he was successful in this venture: Ni te visceribus meis, Horati, Plus iam diligo, tu tuum sodalem Ninnio videas strigosiorem If that I do not love you, my own Horace, more than life itself, behold your comrade leaner than Ninnius.861 The tone of Horace’s references to Maecenas is almost always positive and cordial. Horace was critical of Maecenas before becoming his client, but his new patron allowed the criticisms to remain: “Wickam862 thought that Sermones 1.2 must then have been written before Horace made the acquaintance of Maecenas and suggests that it was the express request of Maecenas himself that the lines were left unchanged, in order, one may suppose, to avoid the odium of exercising improper influence on his friend’s literary product.” 863 We should note that Horace never explicitly thanks his patron.864
die together, not ever wanting to separate. Cf. Pl. Lysis 207c; Sen. Ep. 3.2; Cic. De Amic. 80. 861
Suet. Vita Hor.
862
Horace, The Satires, Epistles, Ars Poetica, trans. and ed. Edward Wickham (New York: Oxford University Press, 1903), 12. 863
Joseph William Hewitt, “The Gratitude of Horace to Maecenas,” CJ 36, no. 8 (1941): 464. The veiled criticism of Maecenas is in Sermones 1.2.25. See Ep. 1.7 for a letter to Maecenas; criticisms of his sex life in Epod. 3. Cf. Campbell, Horace (London:
273 Matthew Santirocco argues that in the Odes, the relationship of Horace to Maecenas develops from one of dependence to a declaration of independence. 865 This theory is sustained by references and allusions to the relationship in the Sermones, Poems, and Epistles. Santirocco notes that book one of the Odes emphasizes the vast material difference between patron866 and poet. 867 Then, in book two, Horace outlines a spiritual dimension, as Horace’s poverty is symbolic of his artistic inspiration that sets him apart from others - including Maecenas. In book three, Santirocco suggests that Horace is superior to Maecenas in his independence from the anxieties of wealth and Horace therefore becomes a spiritual patron of Maecenas. As a whole, Santirocco’s conclusions suggest that the poet can express both dependence on a patron and literary Methuen, 1924), 141. Horace in 2.6.58 is accused of being a puppet of Maecenas, but he says that it is his pleasure to be his client. 864
Hewitt, “Horace,” 466. Maecenas gives Horace a farm, for example, for which Horace is grateful but does not express explicit thanks, Serm. 2.6.1; Ep. 1.14.1; 1.16.5. This is reminiscent of Paul’s “thankless thank-you” in Philippians 4. See David Briones, “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4:10-20,” JSNT 34, no. 1 (2011): 47-9; Gerald W. Peterman, “‘Thankless Thanks’: The Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4:10-20,” TynB 42, no. 2 (1991) 261-270. 865
Matthew Santirocco, “The Maecenas Odes,” TAPA 114 (1984): 241-53. The development of Horace as a client as portrayed in the Satires is noted in Robert J. Baker, “Maecenas and Horace ‘Satires 2.8,’” CJ 83, no. 3 (1988): 213. 866
On the wealth of Maecenas, see Reckford, “Horace and Maecenas,” 195; Dalzell, “Maecenas,” 151-53. 867
The social position of Horace is explored by Lily Ross Taylor, “The Equestrian Career of Horace,” AJA 46, no. 2 (1925): 164-70. Ross examines the writings of Horace and concludes that as a son of a freedman he was disqualified for equestrian service and thus well below the social position of Maecenas, 164. As the scribe of a powerful knight, he enjoyed several privileges: he attended the ludi with Maecenas, sitting in seats in the theater reserved for knights (Serm. 2.6.48; Taylor, “Equestrian Career,” 163); and Horace wore the knight’s ring and garb (Serm. 2.7.53-55; Taylor, “Equestrian Career,” 166).
274 independence at the same time because of their (both the patron and the poet) understanding of inspiration. Santirocco concludes, “While consistently affirming Horace’s sincere affection for Maecenas, these odes, by their dynamic disposition, also create a certain distance and enable their author to maintain a high degree of personal and artistic freedom.”868 Horace declares independence by virtue of his inspiration. This claim is evident in Ode 3, where Horace expresses his close friendship with Maecenas, their economic separation, as well as Horace’s immortality. Cur me querellis exanimas tuis? nec dis amicum est nec mihi te pruis obire, Maecenas, mearum grande decus columenque rerum. a! te meae si partem animae rapit maturior vis, quid moror altera, nec carus aeque nec superstes integer? ille dies utramque ducet ruinam. non ego perfidumdixi sacramentum: ibimus, ibimus, utcumque praecedes, supermum carpere iter comites parati. me nec Chimaerae spiritus igneae nec, si resurgat, centimanus Gyas divellet umquam: sic potenti Iustitiae placitumque Parcis. seu Libra seu me Scorpios adspicit formidolosus pars violentior natalis horae seu tyrannis Hesperiae Capricornus undae, utrumque nostrum incredibili modo consentit astrum. te Iovis impio tutela Saturno refulgens eripuit voluerisque Fati tardavit alas, cum populus frequens laetum theatris ter erepuit sonum; me truncus inlapsus cerebo sustulerant, nisi Faunus ictum dextra levasset, Mercurialium custos virorum. reddere victimas aedemque votivam memento; nos humilem feriemus agnam Why doest thou crush my life out of complaints? ‘Tis the will neither of the gods nor of myself that I should pass away before thee, Maecenas, the great glory and prop of my own existence. Alas, if some untimely blow snatches thee, the half of my own life, away, why do I, the other half, still linger on, neither so dear as before nor surviving whole? That fatal day shall bring the doom of both of us. No false oath have I taken; both, both together, we will go, whene’er thou leadest the way, prepared as comrades to travel the final journey. Me no firey breath of the 868
Santirocco, “Maecenas,” 253. Santirocco does not believe that Maecenas is a poet, but I think that his argument and conclusions are still important. Horace interacted with Maecenas as a poet, albeit not a one as gifted as himself. For Maecenas described as a poet - and indeed not a good one - see Dalzell, “Maecenas,” 161.
275 Chimaera, nor hundred-handed Gyas, should he rise against me, shall ever tear from thee. Such is the will of mighty Justice and the Fates. Whether Libra or dread Scorpio or Capricornus, lord of the Hesperian wave, dominates my horoscope as the more potent influence of my natal hour, the stars of us twain are wonderously linked together. To thee the protecting power of Jove, outshining that of baleful Saturn, brought rescue, and stayed the wings of swift Fate what time the thronging people thrice broke into glad applause at the theatre. Me the trunk of a tree, descending on my head, had snatched away, had not Faunus, the protector of poets, with his right hand warded off the stroke. Remember then to off the victims due and to build a votive shrine! I will sacrifice a humble lamb. 869 Horace expresses his dependence on Maecenas in no uncertain terms. He declares that Maecenas will die before him, and it will destroy Horace because they are true friends: Maecenas is half of Horace. While Maecenas will be honored greatly when he dies, unlike his wealthy friends, Horace will only be able to sacrifice a lamb. This declaration of affection demonstrates to Maecenas that Horace will be faithful to his obligation to reciprocate his many gifts. The independence of Horace is clearly expressed in his refusal to acquiesce to the requests of Maecenas. Horace refuses to publish the Epods when asked (Epod. 14) or to celebrate Augustus’s victories (Carm. 2.12).870 Horace discusses literary patronage: Multa quidem nobis facimus mala saepe poetae (ut vineta egomet caedam mea), cum tibi librum sollicito damus aut fesso; cum laedimur, unum si quis amicorum est ausus reprehendere versum; cum loca iam recitata revolvimus irrevocati; 869
In this Ode, Horace is encouraging Maecenas to commit to the present and celebrate it due to the uncertainness of the future, Steele Commager, “The Function of Wine in Horace’s Odes,” TAPA 88 (1957): 71. Horace speaks only of Maecenas with tender affection: Ode 3.16.20, with the possible exception of Epod. 3, where he playfully criticizes Maecenas’ sexual appetite and Ode 3.19.1, a criticism of the extravagance that we know Maecenas to enjoy. A celebration of Maecenas’ birthday with poetry and divine blessings, which the poet honors almost more than his own, Ode 4.11. Support and praise for Maecenas’ military valor and a vow to support him, Epod. 1 and 9. 870
Cf. Reckford, “ Horace,” 202.
276 cum lamentamur non apprare labores nosotros et tuni deducta poema filo; cum speramus eo rem venturam ut, simul atque carmina rescieris nos fingere, commodus ultro arcessas et egere vetes et scribere cogas. We poets doubtless often do much mischief to our own cause - let me hack at my own vines - when you are anxious or weary and we offer you our book; when we are hurt if a friend has dared to censure a single verse; when, unasked, we turn back to passages already read; when we complain that men loose sight of our labours, and of our poems so finely spun; when we hope it will come to this, that, as soon as you hear we are composing verses, you will go so far as kindly to send for us, banish our poverty, and compel us to write.871 Here Horace describes a literary patron / client relationship. The poet appreciates patronage but shields himself from censure. The reciprocation of patronage is the literary work itself, and the writer is the best person to shape it according to their talents. The writer does desire a patronal relationship, but like a friend seeking a friend, the poet wants the patron to actually enjoy (rather than shape) their literary work for what it is. Horace’s expresses his independence, by defining the nature of his relationship with his patron. In Satire 1.9, Horace praises Maecenas for his literary taste and suggestions that the attention of a man of his stature should not be easily earned: he should not allow just anyone to be a literary client.872 Horace goes on to criticize
871 872
Hor. Ep. 2.1.219-28.
In this Satire, Horace is harassed in the market by a less gifted poet who wishes to be introduced to Maecenas. The pest says that Horace is lucky to have this friendship, which Horace denies in 1.6.52 and 2.6.49 - it is because of Horace’s talent and relationship with the gods combined with Maecenas’ ability to recognize and enjoy such gifts that is the cause of the friendship. Cf., E. Courtney, “Horace and the Pest,” CJ (1994): 4f. There is a long tradition of testing a friend before entrusting one’s soul to them, particularly when one is superior to another. Cf., Arist. Eth. Eud. 7.1237b.19; 7.12.39a.20; Cic. Amic. 63; Sen. Ep. 3.2; Plut. Mor. 48e-74e (How To Tell a Flatterer from a Friend).
277 Alexander the Great for paying an unskilled poet. 873 Alexander presented money to the poet Chœrilus as a gratia (Ep. 2.1.232) for his poetry, as well as requiring Lyssipus to only cast bronze sculptures of Alexander, and ordering that Apelles paint no one but him. Horace then writes that it is foolish to support ungifted poets because their poems will soon become useless slips of paper (Ep. 2.1.270). Talented poets such as Virgil, Varius, and himself instead should be supported (Ep. 2.1.245-70). Despite his claim to independence, Horace’s dependence on Maecenas is clearly displayed in the description of his servitude in Satire 1.6. The critical question then arises, what was the quid pro quo? Horace did not live in Maecenas’ house, nor did he pay him the salutationes in the early morning. But comparison of Satires 2.6, in praise of the Sabine farm, with the earlier city-idyll of 1.6 shows that in time life in Rome became more complicated for the friend of Maecenas. Horace’s days began to be wasted, as he says, in officia, and most of these revolved around Maecenas. He was forced to commute to Rome even in the malarial season, to visit the Esquiline, to carry letters for Maecenas to sign and to perform various other commissions for his patron. He was jostled in the crowded streets, he was pounced upon by ambitious flatterers and envious gossips, and all the time he longed to be back on the Sabine farm. By fulfilling his social duties in the face of these annoying inconveniences, he paid part of his debt. At the same time, however, as he was bitterly satirizing the irritations of the city, he was also endowing Maecenas and his circle with ideal attributes.874 Horace eventually received a farm from Maecenas, which provided for some of his needs, but he still was required to serve his friend as a client in the marketplace and morning salute. Furthermore, despite any claim to superiority to his patron, the wealth, 873
Clyde Murley notes interesting parallel vocabulary in this epistle and Cicero’s defense of his literary patronage in Pro Archia, “Cicero, Pro Archia and Horace, Epistles II, 1, 223ff,”CJ 21, no. 7 (1926): 533. Cicero too contrasts Alexander’s patronage with his own practice of supporting a gifted poet. 874
Reckford, “Horace,” 201. Cf. Hor. Sat. 1.9, where an aspiring poet wants Horace to introduce him to Maecenas, and the hecklers who harass Horace, accusing him of being the literary puppet of his client. Cf. Hor. Ep. 2.1.245-70, where Horace describes the patronage of a talentless poet.
278 status and power clearly elevated Macenas. He writes in Satire 6.1, “Though all of the Lydians that are settled in the Tuscan lands none is of nobler birth than you, and though grandsires of yours, on your mother’s and father’s side alike, commanded mighty legions in the days of old, yet you, Maecenas, do not, like most of the world, curl up your nose at men of unknown birth, men like myself, a freedman’s son.” 875 This separation in status is also evident when Horace refers to Maecenas as rex paterque to refer to Maecenas in Ep. 1.7.37.876 Perhaps late in his career Horace was free from the menial servitude that he resented.877 The very intimate connection between Horace and Maecenas is complimented by the Greco-Roman friendship literature. Horace writes that Maecenas is his other half and this is the very definition of a friend: someone with whom one can share one’s soul.878 Horace refers to their relationship as friendship in Epod. 1.2; Serm. 1.6.50, 53,
875
Hor. Sat. 1.6.1; cf. 1.1.1. Horace mentions his low status again as he predicts his own immortality in Ode 2.20. 876
Juvenal often uses rex or dominus to refer to patrons, Sat. 5.14, 130, 137, 161; 7.45; 10.161. With John E. B. Mayor, Thirteen Satires of Juvenal (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 265, we can compare this use of rex in Martial 2.18.5-8 and orbus in Plin. Ep. 4.15.3. Horace is not a burden to Maecenas because he provides reciprocity in friendship and poetry. 877
Richard Saller writes in “Martial on Patronage and Literature,” CQ 33, no. 1, 448, that “every time Martial mentions Maecenas as an ideal patron, the reason is that his support gave Horace and Virgil otium in the form of an estate large enough to provide an adequate income.” See Mart. 1.107; 8.56; 11.3; 12.4. Francis L. Jones provides an excellent selection of citations from Martial highlighting his aversion to services rendered by clients in “Martial, the Client,” CJ (1935): 355. 878
The definition of a friend is being of one mind (frone/w), Hom. Il. 4.359-61; it is used as a contrast in 22.262-265; cf., Odyssey 6.180-85; 15.195-98; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1166a “e)/sti gar o( fi/loj a)/lloj au)to/j,” “for the friend is another self;” cf., Phld. frag. 8; Cic. De Amic. 6.1-7.23; Sen. Ep. 3; the reason why the flatterer is so dangerous is his counterfeiting such closeness, Plut. Mor.51c; cf., Alc. 203c. In a letter to another friend,
279 62; Carm. 2.18.12; Ep. 1.7.12. There is also a tradition of testing a person’s integrity before entrusting them with intimacy much as a literary patron should test the integrity of a poet’s work before rewarding him with patronage.879 Two applications to 1 Corinthians are apparent. First, the nature of Paul’s apostleship is comparable to poetic inspiration, 880 in the sense that both the apostle and the poet were allowed the freedom to criticize their patrons because of the nature of the services that they provide. The ideal patronal relationship with the poet allows for some artistic license and freedom, which allows the poet to criticize and attempt to correct their patron’s bad habits which may include complaints concerning the level of support that the patron is giving the client. So Paul can give very high praises to the Corinthian patrons (Stephanas in 1 Cor. 16:15-7; Phoebe in Romans 16:2) while disciplining their beliefs and behaviors along with everyone else (1 Cor. 1:17-31; 2:6-8, 18-20; 4:17-21; 5:1-13; 6:1-11, 19; 10:27; 11:1-16). Paul can also discipline his patrons by declaring his freedom from the usual reciprocity that their gifts entail (1 Cor. 9:1-23). At the same time, poetic inspiration is what the patron values most of all: if the poet is truly inspired, the patron will be immortalized in the client’s writing. In this case, Maecenas and Phoebe got an excellent return on their investments.
he may be referring to himself and Maecenas in a story about a client and a parton, Ep. 1.7.46-95, see especially 75 and 92. 879
Arist. Eth. Eud. 7.1237b.19; 7.1239a; cf. Phild. frag. 88; Cic. Amic. 63; Sen. Ep. 3.2; Plut. Mor. 49e. 880
This description of the nature of Paul’s apostleship is not to the exclusion of Christopher Mount’s notion of Paul’s “spirit possession,” “1 Corinthians 11:3-16,” 313340.
280 Secondly, other artistic clients were clamoring for the support of Maecenas, and Horace was quick to attack his competition and urge Maecenas to continue his level of support for the truly talented poet. After discussing this artistic patron/client relationship, I will discuss what patrons said of the institution, and present some expectations and disappointments that patrons and clients had in their “friendships.” I will then discuss how in the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul defends his apostleship and Gospel against the ideal qualities of the travelling sophist – a person that some philosophically educated women may support if they are impressed with his rhetoric. The sophists worked as public lawyers (using forensic rhetoric),881 competed882 publically in rhetorical contest for disciples, students, and patronal support, and honors from cities. 883 I will also examine how Paul positions himself against the sophist, places his knowledge of God outside of philosophical inquiry, and embodies the true nature of the ideal wise-person (a concept that receives more elaboration in chapter seven). However, I will first address the nature of patronage as described by literary patrons themselves.
The Patrons Speak The review of Horace and Maecenas relies mostly on the point of view of the literary client. We are also fortunate enough to have the perspective of literary patrons Cicero and Pliny the Younger. In these two literary patrons, the same pattern emerges as 881
Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; cf., Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 37.
882
D. A. Russell, Greek Declamations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 75-80; Bowerstock, Greek Sophists, 588. 883
crown.
Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 26-33. One honor includes a golden
281 above, but from a different perspective. The patron expects pleasure from the client in the form of a good literary product and provides the usual critical support of gifts, legal protection, and other benefits of friendship. Cicero defends both the practice of literary patronage and practices it as he defends his client, the gifted poet Archias in his speech Pro Archia. 884 In this forensic speech, Cicero defends the Roman citizenship of his friend on the basis of his lineage and inspiration as a poet.885 Qua re quis tandem me reprehendat, aut quis mihi iure suscenseat, si, quantum ceteris ad suas res obeundas, quantum ad festos dies ludorum celebrandos, quantum ad alias voluptates et ad ipsam requiem animi et corporis conceditur temporum, quantum alii tribuunt tempestivis conviviis, quantum denique alveolo, quantum pilae, tantum mihi egomet ad haec studia recolenda sumpsero? Atque hoc ideo mihi concedendum est magis, quod ex his studiis haec quoque crescit oratio et facultas; quae, quantacumque in me est, numquam amicorum periculis defuit. Quae si cui levior videtur, illa quidem certe, quae summa sunt, ex quo fonte hauriam sentio. Nam nisi multorum praeceptis multisque litteris mihi ab adulescentia suasissem, nihil esse in vita magno opere expetendum nisi laudem atque honestatem, in ea autem persequenda omnis cruciatus corporis, omnia pericula mortis atque exsili parvi esse ducenda, numquam me pro salute vestra in tot ac tantas dimicationes atque in hos profligatorum hominum cotidianos impetus obiecissem. Sed pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum vetustas: quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi litterarum lumen accederet. How then can I justly be blamed or censured, if it shall be found that I have devoted to literature a portion of my leisure hours no longer than others without blame devote to the pursuit of material gain, to the celebration of festivals or games, to pleasure and the repose of mind and body, to protracted banqueting, or perhaps to the gaming board or to ball-playing? I have the better right to indulgence herein, because my devotion to letters strengthens my oratorical powers, and these, such as they are, have never failed my friends in their hour of peril. Yet insignificant though these powers seem to be, I fully realize from what source I draw all that is highest in them. Had I not persuaded myself from my 884
Martial likewise needed defense, but for a different reason: poets published works in his name; see 7.72.12-16. Saller, “Martial,” 247. 885
Paul R. Murhpy, “Cicero’s Pro Archia and the Periclean Epitaphios,” TAPA 89 (1958): 100.
282 youth up, thanks to the moral lessons derived from a wide reading, that nothing is to be greatly sought after in this life save glory and honour, and that in their quest all bodily pains and dangers of death or exile should be lightly accounted, I should never have borne for the safety of you all the brunt of many a bitter encounter, or bared my breast to the daily onsets of abandoned persons. All literature, all philosophy, all history, all abounds with incentives to noble action which would be buried in black darkness were the light of the written word not flashed upon them.886 In his apology for literary patronage, he emphasizes the practical nature of the Roman interest in moral lessons. Cicero claims that people do not criticize each other for supporting ventures from which they enjoy some type of material gain. No one can look down on his support of the arts which produces an abundance of virtue. Cicero goes on to write that there is no shame in supporting an inspired poet because engaging in literary study and its moral lessons shaped and strengthened him for his successful career. Cicero therefore supports literacy due to its moral value while defending his participation in literary patronage as well as encouraging his audience to do the same. Quae vero accurate cogitateque scripsisset, ea sic vidi probari, ut ad veterum scriptorum laudem perveniret. Hunc go non diligam, non admirer, non omni ratione defendendum putem? Atqui sic a summis hominibus eruditissimisqu accepimus, ceterarum rerum studia et doctrina et praeceptis et arte constare, poëtam natura ipsa valere et mentis viribus excitari et quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari. To his finished and studied work I have known such approval accorded that his glory rivalled that of the great writers of antiquity. Does not such a man deserve my affection and admiration? Should I not count it my duty to strain every nerve in his defense? And yet we have it on the highest and most learned authority that while other arts are matters of science and formula and technique, poetry depends solely upon an inborn faculty, is evoked by a purely mental activity, and is infused with a strange supernatural inspiration. 887
886 887
Cic. Arch. 6.13-14.
Cic. Arch. 8.18. Perhaps Cicero is referring to Plato or Aristotle’s views on poetic inspiration.
283 Inspiration of the poet is evident in the quality of the work and not in an experiential affirmation of divine presence when reading the poetry. Incidentally, the quality of the poetry is what gives it enduring life and therefore immortality to the patrons who support it. Because of the inspired work that Archia in particular has produced, Cicero feels obliged to defend him: Sit igitur, iudices, sanctum apud vos, humanissimos homiens, hoc poëtae nomen, quod nulla umquam barbaria violavit. Saxa et solitudines voci respondent, bestiae saepe immanes cantu flectuntur atque consistunt: nos institui rebus optimis non poëtarum voce moveamur? Holy then, [ladies and] gentlemen, in your eyes let the name of the poet be, inviolate hitherto by the most benighted of races! The very rocks of the wilderness give back a sympathetic echo to the voice; savage beasts have sometimes been charmed into stillness by song; and shall we, who are nurtured upon all that is highest, be deaf to the appeal of poetry? 888 Cicero goes on to submit that poets should be called “sanctum,” holy because of their special relationship with God. Cicero reasons that while many potential patrons have the desire to study for themselves, not everyone is gifted with poetic inspiration. 889 “Quod si ipsi haec neque attingere neque sensu nostro gustare possemus, tamen ea mirari deberemus, etiam quum in aliis videremus,” “But it may happen that we ourselves were without literary tastes or attainments; yet even so, it would be incumbent on ourselves to reverence their 888 889
Cic. Arch. 8.19.
Cicero, like Maecenas after him, not only enjoyed poetry but dabbled in it a bit himself. If Cicero could claim divine inspiration for himself, other writers did not attribute it to him. Cf. Cic. Div. 1.17-22. Plutarch writes, “His fame for oratory abides to this day, although there have been great innovations in style; but his poetry, since many gifted poets have followed him, has altogether fallen into neglect and disrepute,” Cicero 2.4. Cf. John Spaeth, “Cicero the Poet,” CJ (1931): 500, and the many more contemporary references, 510. An analysis of the literary activity of Maecenas is available in Dalzell, “Maecenas,” 157.
284 manifestation in others.”890 As a literary patron, Cicero longed for a poet to immortalize his consulship in Rome in 63 BCE - something that he ended up doing himself in Greek.891 Cicero comments on the eternal reward for such patronage: “Neque enim quisquam est tam aversus a Musis qui non mandari versibus aeternum suorum laborum facile praeconium patiatur,” “For indeed that is no man to whom the Muses are so distasteful that he will not be glad to entrust to poetry the eternal emblazonment of his achievements.”892 In a letter to his friend Cornelius Priscus (dated around 104 CE), the younger Pliny writes of an exchange with Martial. 893 In exchange for Martial’s verses, Pliny funds his journey from Rome to Bilbilis in Spain. Even after Martial’s death, Pliny shows off his prize to another friend and reasons: Meritone eum qui haec de me scripsit et tunc dimisi amicissime et nunc ut amicissimum defunctum esse doleo? Dedit enim mihi quantum maximum potuit, daturus ampilus si potuisset. Tamestsi quid homini potest dari maius, quam gloria et laus et aeternitas? At non erunt aeterna quae scripsit: non erunt fortasse, ille tamen scriptsit tamquam essent futura. Was I right then to part on such friendly terms from the author of these verses about me? Am I right to mourn his death of one of my dearest friends? He gave me of his best, and would have given me more had he been able, though surely nothing 890
Cic. Arch. 7.17.
891
Cic. Att. 1.19.10; and in 2.1.1 he confesses that the poem is rather amateurish. Cf., Spaeth, “Cicero the Poet,” 507. 892
Cic. Arch. 9.19; Cf. 9.22 and 26, where Cicero claims that Metellus sought to have his deeds immortalized by Archias. 893
For more on this episode, see Peter White, “The Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage,” Harv. Stud. 79, (1975): 265-300; R. P. Saller, “Martial on Patronage,” 253; Debra Hershkowitz, “Pliny the Poet,” G&R, 2nd ser. 42, no. 2 (1995): 168-181; R. A. Pitcher, “The Hole in the Hypothesis: Pliny and Martial Reconsidered,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 52, no. 5 (1999): 554-561.
285 more can be given to a man than a tribute which will bring him fame and immortality. You may object that his verses will not be immortal; perhaps not, but he wrote them with that intention. 894 Pliny supposes that since Martial wrote verses about him with the intent that the words last forever, Martial was reciprocating Pliny’s patronage adequately. 895 Of course, Pliny knew that Martial was quite talented and his verses would most likely endure, and he made certain of that because he published it in his own epistles. Martial’s gift was nothing less than an invocation for the Muse to approach Pliny’s house on the Esquiline with respect: Sed ne tempore non tuo desertam pulses ebria ianaum, videto. Totos dat tetricae dies Minervae, dum centum studet auribus virorum hoc, quod saecula posterique possint Arpinis quoque comparare chartis. Seras tutior ibis ad lucernas: haec hora est tua, cum furit Lyaeus, cum regnat rosa, cum madent capilli. Tunc me vel rigidi legant Catones. But take heed you give no drunken knock on Eloquence’s [Pliny’s] door at a time that is not yours; all the day he devotes to serious study, while he prepares for the ears of the Hundred Court that which time and posterity may compare even with Arpinum’s [Cicero’s] pages. Safer will you go at the time of the late-kindled lamps; that hour is yours when Lyaeus is in revel, when the rose is queen, when locks are drenched. Then let even unbending Catos read me.896
894
Plin. Ep. 3.21 (Radice, LCL). Peter White in his, “Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome,” JRS 68 (1978): 84, notes that Martial receives less attention than other necrologies; compare Silius Italicus in 3.7 and Domitius Tullus in 8.18. 895
John Garthwaite, “Patronage and Poetic Immortality in Martial, Book 9,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 51, no. 2 (1998): 161-175. 896
7.84.1
Mart. 10.19 (Bailey, LCL). Pliny is also favorably mentioned in 5.81.13 and
286 We should note that Pliny was not interested in an ongoing relationship with Martial - he simply recognized the poet’s ability to write and paid him for a poem that honored him.897
Expectations and Disappointments From his philosophically educated patronesses, 898 Paul would expect one simple thing first: faithfulness to himself and his teachings before any other teacher or philosophical idea. Faithfulness to Paul’s message and specific imitation of his character are a major theme in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1) and in the other undisputed epistles.899 This imitation is a direct result of receiving Paul as an apostle who gives the words of God (1 Cor 4:15).900 If the audience is faithful to Paul’s message, then it is
897
There are some other letters of Pliny that tell us of the patron’s interpretation of his role. Pliny knew of Cicero’s generosity in supporting poetry and he committed himself to the criticism of a friend’s poetry (3.15). Pliny exchanged his works with Cornelius Tacitus, whom he considered to be his friend and social equal, so that they could critique one another’s work (7.20 and 6.6.3). Pliny also passes literary works on to his friends (1.16 and 4.27.5). 898
As indicated above, I will be exploring the most likely candidates for a philosophical education: the wealthy widow. Certainly such women (wealthy widows) existed in the Pauline community at Corinth. My research affirms that women of a variety of social status could have received a philosophical education: women with philosophers in the immediate family who may or may not be attached to a wealthy household. This would include wives and slaves of philosophers. At the same time, however, the overwhelming amount of existing evidence speaks to women of higher status. 899 900
1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:14-16; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 4:9
See also 1 Thess. 1:5; Gal. 4:13-14; Phil. 3:1-16 and Benjamin Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (New York: Trinity, 2003), 240.
287 evidence that Paul did not do this work in vain (keno,j in 1 Cor 15.10).901 In all of these instances, Paul is addressing the entire audience, motivated by a variety of reasons to reaffirm the nature of his apostleship so as to obligate his hearers to do what he wants them to do. Paul’s insistence on faithfulness rather than personal benefits (1 Cor. 4:123), like attaching himself to a household, likely caused some confusion and frustration from the wealthier people in the community who felt obligated to reciprocate his ministries (1 Cor. 9:12).902 Despite his refusal to participate in personal patronage, Paul did expect critical benefits from people of higher status, and philosophically educated women would be connected to wealth in some way, whether directly or by means of influence within their household. Monetary gifts to the churches, defense in court,903 providing a place for the church to meet,904 and exchanging and reading his letters to the churches are benefits that would normally require higher class benefactors. Another benefit that Paul expected from higher status community members was the facilitation of letter exchange, which a philosophically educated woman could frustrate if she were unhappy with its content. There is one such exchange in the New Testament: the churches of Colossae and Laodicea were instructed to circulate their 901
Cf., keno,j in 1 Thess. 2.1; Phil. 2.16 and eivkh / also in Gal. 4.11.
902
Hock, Tentmaking, 65. Because Paul did not attach himself to a household, he may have encountered resistance, frustration, or confusion; Chow, Patronage and Power, 109. 903 904
Jewett, “Phoebe,” 152.
Cf., Stanley Kent Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking, and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26, no. 1 (1984): 68; Chow, Patronage and Power, 16-27.
288 epistles (Col. 4:16), a role that Horace expected from his patron Maecenas 905 and that Cicero906 and Pliny907 practiced. Nympha was perhaps responsible for having it read in Laodicea, providing a house in which the church met (Col. 4:15). Paul expected the largest audience possible for all of his letters, consistently addressing the widest crosssection of potential hearers within the churches. This is significant because the epistle, with its thanksgivings, blessings, praises, and curses, would be read aloud repeatedly to the largest audiences possible, which greatly enhances the power and severity of both positive and negative speech. One source of the fragility between Paul and a philosophically educated patroness would be the confusing and non-standardized methods of ascertaining a fictional equality of status. In the Roman world, the patron is always superior, but the parton/client relationship can express the superiority of the client by means of virtue and the patron by means of service. Because of this dynamic, the ancients could describe the patron/client relationship as “friendship.” Aristotle theorizes that friendship only exists between equals, but superiors and inferiors can compensate the difference in status. 908 In order for “true” friendship between unequals to occur, fictive equality must be established, and an inferior can rise to the status of the superior on the basis of the inferior’s goodness. 909 905
Hor. Ep. 2.1.245-70.
906
Cic. Arch. 6.13-14.
907
Plin. Ep. 3.21.
908
Arist. Eth. Eud. 7.1241b.12-13.
909
This can be seen in the claims of certain poets or philosophers as rising to the status of their patrons, kings, or gods on the basis of their relationship or commission by the god(s) or muse(s).
289 So if there is any inequality, as there is between a god and a human being or a ruler and a subject, the inferior one compensates for inferiority by honoring the superior. The superior then reciprocates the honor received by giving a benefit that she reckons equal to the honor received. There is no set scale by which a person can determine proportional equity, which will cause disruption in friendships and perhaps even lawsuits if the persons involved do not base their relationship on goodness. 910 Paul’s calling as teacher/apostle – at least in his mind - set him in a higher status than anyone in the church: he is uniquely called by God to do everything that he does (sometimes one gets the feeling that Paul is making it up as he goes along). This unique calling is emphasized especially in his record of his divine calling and subsequent correction of Peter in Galatians,911 the patterning of his self-description after the Christhymn in Philippians,912 and his consistent self-sufficiency. 913 Paul often compensates for
910
Arist. Eth. Eud. 7.1243b.25 and following. Occasionally, the reciprocal relationship may be violated - especially when monetary transactions are involved, and friends may sue one another in court. The moral way to resolve a conflict, according to Aristotle, is to solve issues voluntarily instead of in a court of law, Eth. Eud. 7.1243a.714. 911
David M. Hay, “Paul’s Indifference to Authority,” JBL 88, no. 1 (1969): 42; B. R., “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” NovT 28, no. 4 (1986): 309; Robert G. Hall, “The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration,” JBL 106, no. 2 (1987): 285; cf., Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 80. 912
Cf., Benjamin Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (New York: Trinity, 2003), 240. 913
According to Malherbe’s analysis, Paul associates himself with the Cynic ideal philosopher in both 1 Thess 2 and in Phil 4. Cf., Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 203-17; Malherbe “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency,” 125-39.
290 his assertions of superiority914 with terms like co-worker (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 1:24), coprisoner (Rom. 16:7),915 and king (1 Cor. 4:8) by honoring and praising the community and individuals who would otherwise be disqualified for friendship due to inequality. In 1 Cor. 3:9, Paul equates himself with Apollos as co-workers of God, so that there can be unity between those who claim to follow both teachers. Paul humbles himself to the level of Andronicus and Junia, his fellow-prisoners in Romans 16:7. Elsewhere, Paul uses basileu/w similarly to rex, the client’s word for a rich patron (1 Cor. 4:8). 916 Similarly, Paul humbles himself by referencing his voluntary poverty, compensating for the inferiority of his patrons (their wealth has made them inferior to Paul because they have become proud and indulgent) and general audience (1 Cor. 4:9-13).917 Because Paul compensates for his superiority by referencing the foolishness of his Gospel and the sufferings that he has to endure, he is able to practice corrective speech, frankness that is only possible after friendship is established. Paul reminds the Corinthians of his established friendship with them by referencing his previous visits. Paul’s frank, corrective speech manifests itself in his disapproval of their human wisdom (1 Cor. 1:17-
914
Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 216; 162.
915
Cf., Col. 4:10 and Phlm. 23.
916
Horace uses rex paterque to refer to Maecenas in Ep. 1.7.37. Gilbert Highet also demonstrates that Juvenal often uses rex or its attributes to refer to patrons Juvenal Sat. 5.14, 130, 137, 161; 7.45; 10.161; “Libertino patre natus,” JPh 94 (1973): 279; Cf., Mark Morford, “Juvenal’s Fifth Satire,” AJPh 98, no. 3 (1977): 219-45; cf., David Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert Yarbrough and Robert Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 137; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 72-3; Matin, Corinthian Body, 66. 917
Hock, Tentmaking, 60; Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 325. His selfdescription as a slave of Christ fits here as well, Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 81.
291 31; 2:1-5, 7-10; 3:18-20), moral failures (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 6:1-11), disunity (1. Cor. 1:10-16; 3:3-4 11:17-20), and the inferiority of their calling (1 Cor. 1:16-9). Paul will always be superior to the community by way of his calling as apostle (2:12-16; 3:10; 4:9-13; 9:127). It is these issues that Paul addresses with corrective, frank speech. To understand better Paul’s use of frank speech, the corrective words of a friend, we must look to the writings of his contemporaries. The most useful insights into frank/corrective speech are in the fragments of Philodemus’s Peri parrhsi/aj and Plutarch’s How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend.918 These documents demonstrate without doubt that frank speech is corrective speech. Because false friends of inferior status or character could compensate for their inferiority by flattering/praising/honoring their superiors, and indeed many people of superior status enjoyed this attention, the moralists taught that the true character of a friend was corrective speech. And in this spirit of correction, school, kinship and medical terms are often used. 919 The fragments of Philodemus preserve for us the remains of the only known work by any author entitled Peri parrhsi/aj (Conerning Frank Speech). tw=n gar a0gaqw=[n e2neka metapoih/comen [ton] o0mili/a < i > genco[menon] fi/l[wn] tro/pon: ie0 de [a0gaq]w=n, pw=j ou0xi kai tw=n kakw=n; w9j gar e3nei/nwn, 918
Cf., John T. Fitzgerald, “Paul and Friendship,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2003), 319-43 and the compilations of essays edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech (New York: Brill, 1996) and Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). The text and translation of Philodemus is from On Frank Criticism, trans. Diskin Clay David Konstan, Clarence E. Glad, Johan C. Thom, and James Ware (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). An indispensable resource is Dirk Obbink John T. Fitzgerald and Glenn S. Holland, eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World (New York: Brill, 2004). 919
Philodemus uses medical terminology in frag. 63, 64, 69, and 67; cf., Plut. Mor. 69c-e.
292 ou3tw kai tou/twn prosh/kei sunpaqi/aj xa/rin, di0 h4n bohqou/meqa. kai gar ei0 men e1s[ti par]rhs[i]a/santa mei=nai e0pi tw=n au0tw=n, ei0 mhqen e3ce[ij], sws[eij] a1nd[ra fi/lon:] .. as it will come to be . But if {on account} of [{our} good {qualities}], how not also of {our} bad ones? For, just as it is suitable on account of the good cheer of the former, so too is thanks to sympathy for the latter, through which we are helped. ..920 Sharp frank speech may offend (frag. 60) because it could appear to be an insult. Frank speech properly applied is like the work of a doctor (frag. 63, 64, 69, cf., 67; cf., Plutarch Mor. 66a) - a metaphor that Philodemus uses both positively and negatively. Many of Philodemus’s fragments are in the context of the wise-person correcting students or the general public with the proper use of frank speech. Paul’s frank speech in 1 Corinthians could certainly be taken as insults: their inability to unify (1 Cor. 1:10-3), Paul had to feed them ‘milk’ due to their immaturity (3:1-4), they did not have the foresight to handle judgment properly (5:1-5; 6:1-11), and had disunity in worship (11:17-34). Like Philodemus (On Frank Criticism XXIa), Paul states that is not his intention to offend and grieves over the possible strain that his corrective speech would put on their relationship (7:8-9). It may be painful, like a medical procedure, but frank speech is intended to improve one’s friend (Plut. Mor. 51c; Phld. frag. 32, col. 17b; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.5, 7, 11).921
920 921
Phld. frag. 43.
J. Paul Sampley, “Paul and Frank Speech,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 293-318.
293 So far in this chapter, I have examined philosophical patronage, the question of patronage in 1 Corinthians, the possibility of wealthy members of the Pauline community in Corinth, and the similarities of the literary patron/client relationship and what that could mean for Paul’s interaction with his wealthy supporters. Most philosophers in the Roman period participated in patronage relationships (whether or not they praised the institution itself), and many patrons and patronesses enjoyed supporting them. Supporting philosophy was one of the means by which a wealthy woman could secure a philosophical education for herself and her children. Some of the members of the Pauline community – both named and unnamed - could have had some wealth and supported their artistic/philosophical interests as well as Paul and the church as they would a voluntary association or a philosophical school. Literary/artistic clients enjoyed some measure of artistic freedom: philosophers, poets, rhetors, and other artists were somewhat free to criticize their patrons and even show contempt for the patron/client relationship in general. This is important for Pauline studies because while he claims to be completely self-reliant, he may indeed participate in some informal reciprocal relationship with a wealthy member of the Corinthian community.922 All of this is meant to bring two characters into focus: Sophia and Fortuna, philosophically educated women who read 1 Corinthians from their unique point of view. Both are wealthy, widowed, and have the broad philosophical education of a woman who has participated in many philosophical discussions in her home. These women represent the most likely type of philosophically educated women that Paul would encounter in 922
I have no interest here in describing the Christ cult as an artistic movement, but merely to show how a client can lay claim to freedom to criticise their patron and the patronage system while participating in patron/client relationships.
294 first-century Corinth. The wealthier widows had more control of their own property and therefore were able to support and bring philosophers and thinkers into their home as they pleased, and when they encountered Paul they evaluated him based on their philosophical preference and possibly even on the opportunity to secure or improve their standing with their friends. Because these women are wealthy, there is much at stake for Paul. It is in his best interest to persuade them without alienating them or otherwise frustrating their sympathies. With that being said, we are ready to begin reading 1 Corinthians with two philosophically educated women.
Reading 1 Corinthians 1-4 with Sophia and Fortuna In the following section, we will read 1 Corinthians chapters 1-4 with two philosophically educated women. 923 This specific type of woman is a wealthy patroness of the church who was fortunate enough to be familiar with the popular philosophical schools of her day. Wealthier women were much more likely to be educated and financially able to pursue their philosophical interests, which could be quite broad. At the same time, there are simply too many known and unknown variables to anticipate exactly how a given person would read a text, because a person can inexplicably choose to break conventions at any time. For example, a woman educated by an Epicurean could choose to break away from the basic tenants of Epicureanism when she hears Paul’s epistle read to the church. A Stoic could suddenly turn neo-Pythagorean or Platonist, and then inexplicably accept Paul’s teaching at the same time. But our philosophically
923
For rhetorical devices in these chapters, see Benjamin Fiore, “‘Covert Allusion’ in 1 Corinthians 1-4,” CBQ 47 no. 1 (1985): 85-102.
295 educated women, having a broad philosophical experience and no commitment to a specific school, interact with Paul from this liberal perspective, valuing Paul according to these interests. Another element that should be discussed at the outset is the method of reading. We will read 1 Corinthians in a somewhat strict canonical order, the divisions being 1:182:5; 2:6-3:4; 3:5-4:5; 4:6-21.924 That is, modern interpreters read 1 Corinthians 1-4 with the entire Corinthian correspondence in mind, sometimes in a highly creative chronological order, with the various interpretative tools in mind such as textual criticism, letter form, rhetorical criticism, etc. We will read 1 Corinthians 1-4 with philosophically educated women as they would have heard the epistle being read for the first time, trying to understand with each woman the meaning as she would have heard it from her various contexts. There are, of course, limits to this discussion. Like all other dissertations, this work will not be many more things than it is. Most importantly, this dissertation will not be written from the perspective of Antoinette Wire:925 she addresses women prophets who are of low social status, and I am examining women philosophically educated women of higher status, so my interpretations will start from these points of departure. My work does not seek to correct or challenge Wire’s work, but to offer a complimentary study that focuses on two wealthy philosophically educated women rather than a group of 924
Of course the divisions of the text are similar but not uniform. My division matches Collins, Corinthians, 30; cf., Thisleton, Corinthians, vii. Some interpretaters vary slightly, varying on transitional verses: Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, vi-viii; Hays, Corinthians, vii; Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), viii. 925
See above, chapter 1.
296 poor women prophets. There were few people in the Corinthian community who were the same status as Sophia and Fortuna, which is why I am not arguing that philosophically educated women were some kind of dynamic group like Wire’s women prophets. While it is entirely possible that some of the Corinthian women prophets were philosophically educated because such education was available to women of lower status, this dissertation will focus on wealthier women because most of the evidence for philosophically educated women is concentrated on higher status women. Because Wire’s work and my own both address women in the Corinthian community, there is significant overlap in the texts that we interpret. However, we should expect that philosophically educated women and Wire’s women prophets would experience the text in quite different ways. Another significant limitation is the subjectivity of the interpreter, myself. I can attempt to set aside myself and my contexts as far as possible to try and understand the world of the Corinthian church using the fragmentary evidence from the past, but I will always be present in an alien culture with everything that defines me as a person and a scholar. I cannot stop being a 21st century male, indoctrinated my entire life by the ideals of my cultures, and educated in religion and historical methods for my entire adult life. While I imagine the past, the positive and negative elements of my contexts will always be either in the foreground or background. So my subjectivity is defined by my limited understanding of myself and my contexts: I do not assume that I can know myself well enough to proclaim a grasp of positive knowledge, especially of people of the past. However, having observed the philosophical education of women in the ancient world the best that I can, it is appropriate to apply that knowledge to similar women in the
297 Corinthian community and how they would interpret the New Testament. An important underlying interpretative theory behind this work is an awareness that the author exists only in his present contexts, and any access that the author has to his subject is provided by a wide range of ancient and modern primary and secondary sources. Because there is no record of philosophically educated women reading the New Testament, if we want to read 1 Corinthians with them, we must use some historical imagination. It is historically plausible that there were such women in the church – they simply need to be brought to the foreground with a reading that is as true as possible to their historical contexts. The following sections will not be a full exegesis of 1 Corinthians, but an imaginative exploration of how a specific type of woman would read certain portions of the text which might apply or appeal to, puzzle, or offend her because of her education and social status. I will attempt to read selections from 1 Corinthians from the perspectives of two hypothetical philosophically educated women: Sophia and Fortuna. I have constructed these perspectives by situating them in the context of ancient education (connection to a wealthy household), the schools with traditions of women in philosophy and the social status that are associated with Corinth (neo-Pythagoreans, Stoics, Cynics, Epicureans, and (middle-) Platonism), and read 1 Corinthians from that location. Amidst all uncertainties, I am constructing two specific women, using the evidence gathered in the first four and a half chapters of this dissertation. I have written above that a philosophically educated woman is a woman who has come into contact with enough philosophical teaching from any school to identify and interact with components of 1 Corinthians which have points of connection with Greco-Roman philosophy. This
298 woman does not have to adhere to a particular school or even remember everything that she learned from her teachers or friends (or whatever circumstance that she came in contact with philosophy). Because a philosophically educated woman would typically have been connected to a wealthy household or be wealthy herself, we will read 1 Corinthians with a wealthy woman who has broad intellectual interests like Julia Domna and can give patronal support for the Paul and the church, like Phoebe. We will look at 1 Corinthians 1-4 with two hypothetical patronesses. Our first philosophically educated woman will be named Sophia, who is generally sympathetic to Paul’s message. Alongside Sophia, we will read with Fortuna, a philosophically educated woman who is generally unsympathetic to Paul’s message. Both Sophia and Fortuna are best described as “municiple elites” in Bruce Longnecker’s scale, which includes most decurial families, wealthy men and women who do not hold office, and some freedpersons, retainers, veterans, and merchants.926 I refer to Sophia and Fortuna as “wealthier,” “wealthy,” or of “higher status” with respect to their status relative to most other members of the church, who were ES 5, 6, and 7 (just above, at, and below sustinance level). Paul was most likely from the “municiple elite” before he willingly (to serve as an apostle) or unwillingly (because he served as an apostle) lost his status.927 The similar backgrounds of Paul, Sophia, and Fortuna facilitate an environment for understanding, particularly regarding Paul’s usage of popular philosophy and patron/client relationships.
926
Bruce Longnecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 44-53, 317-32. 927
Cf., Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 66-7.
299 Like other literary clients, Paul appears indifferent to personal patronal support; however, patronage was needed for the church to thrive in Corinth and wealthier women were active in the community. Eager to participate in or support the latest artistic/intellectual trend, the patroness was financially able to support both Paul and his opponents. But the pressure to keep the support secure was evidently too much for Paul to bear: he could no longer risk losing support due to the threat of his opponents, who his patronesses could chose to exclusively support at any time. In 1 Corinthians 1-4, Paul gets right to the point and distinguishes himself from his perceived competition by elevating himself and his message far beyond what a mere sophist928 or wise-person could do.929 Paul begins by distinguishing himself as the apostle called by God.930 Paul was sent by Christ to preach the good news as opposed to sophistic discourse (1 Cor. 1:17), he is the founder of the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:5, 10, 9:1) and as the apostle, he has the highest calling in the church (1 Cor. 12:28). Furthermore, Paul renounces his right as apostle to payment (and his sophist opponents
928
Timothy H. Lim notes the lack of clarity here: a ‘sophist’ can be either a professional speaker or one who picked up the sensibilities of a travelling orator, “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power,” NovT 29 no. 2 (1987): 145. What is not in dispute is that Paul’s opponents did embrace sophistic tendancies, however they came by them. 929
This sort of polemic is common in the ancient world. See Harrison. “Paul’s Language of Greece,” 338-9; P. W. Barnett, “Opponents of Paul,” DPL 644-53; Jerry Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents, JSNTSup 40 (Shefflield: JSOT, 1990). 930
Gary S. Selby, “Paul, the Seer: The Rhetorical Persona in 1 Corinthians 2:116,” in Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 351-373.
300 also should?).931 Paul therefore never demands payment for himself, but he does expect wealthier members of the community to support the church, providing a place for the church to meet, monetary gifts, and legal protection.932 Positioning himself against his opponents, Paul asserts that the God who called him to be an apostle, has made the wise foolish.933 These comments are directed specifically toward his opponents and address whatever views they may have held, and make no comment on any other school or beliefs, regardless of who holds them. That is, a sympathetic philosophically educated woman may well hold to the same teachings that Paul opposes, but in courting her favor Paul feels it necessary to distinguish himself from other sophists in the church. An unsympathetic philosophically educated woman would be constantly frustrated throughout the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, particularly by Paul’s artificial separation of the wisdom that she identifies with and his divine wisdom. Both Sophia and Fortuna were initially attracted to Paul because of the theology of freedom embodied in his message of the cross. Paul’s teachings concerning the cross were liberating both in theological and social dimensions.934 Through the cross, God brought all people to the same fictive social level, and freed everyone – male and female, rich and poor, Greek and Jew, powerful and powerless, educated and illiterate – to 931
Nicholas H. Taylor, “Conflict as Context for Defining Identity: A Study of Apostleship in the Galatian and Corinthian Letters,” HTS 59 no. 3 (2003): 933-45. 932
See above, n. 94.
933
This is reminiscent of the Socratic denial of knowledge, cf., Gregory Vlastos, “Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge,” PQ 35, no. 138 (1985): 1-31. 934
Cf., Wenhua Shi, Paul’s Message of the Cross as Body Language, WUNT 2.254 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 106; Raymond Picket, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997).
301 experience God and the community without normative social constraints (at least in theory). Paul embraced what may have already been a familiar social message in some voluntary associations: that within the community, social patterns can be reversed or achieve a kind of fictive equality. 935 Paul’s teachings on this concept, however, were a bit more agressive and comprehensive than other collegia.936 The difference between Paul’s community and other voluntary associations937 and religious cults in Corinth was that it was more open to the public participation of women who were not preistesses. Following the pattern of self-sacrificing love exemplified in the cross, 938 Sophia and Fortuna expressed their freedom by participating with other men and women in worship, prophesy, hosting meals, supporting the church financially, engaging in intellectual
935
A list of members in a cultic association in Attica (135 BCE?) includes men, women, and slaves of different social status. John S. Kloppenborg and Richard Ascough, Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary: I Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), no. 40 = IG II2 2358; cf., no. 43, 52, 53, 68, and 72. There was a household-based association led by a certain Dionysios, who established rules for the association that allowed for the participation of “men, women, free people and slaves,” ILydiaKP III 18 = SIG3 985. For notes and bibliography, see Philip Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 30-1. For more on gender and social rank in the associations, see Richard S. Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations, WUNT 2.161 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 47-59. 936
Wayne O. McGready, “EKKLĒSIA and Voluntary Associations,” in Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg et al (New York: Routledge, 1996), 62; cf., Clarke, Serve the Community, 59-78; Ron Comeron and Merrill P. Miller, “Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians, ed. Ron Comeron and Merrill P. Miller (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 287-9. 937
ILS 4203 and 4215 (slave and free). R. H. Barrow does argue that most slaves only participated in the collegia that consisted of slaves and freedpersons, Slavery in the Roman Empire, 166. 938
Cf., Witherington, Conflict and Community, 196; Garland, Corinthians, 29930, 404; Hays, Corinthians, 101-7; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 120-4.
302 interests, and by means of their philosophical education choose for themselves how to interpret Paul’s teachings concerning patronage, instructions regarding marriage and divorce, and the agon motif.
Reading 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5 with Sophia In this section and throughout chapters 1-4, Paul distinguishes himself from his opponents, “those of Apollos.”939 These “opponents” may well only be opponents to Paul in his mind and not aware that their thinking and practices go against Paul’s teaching. Paul’s critique of sophia in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 goes directly against many common sophistic and philosophical ideals concerning wisdom, but that does not need to complicate his relationship with a philosophically educated patroness such as Sophia, who sees little difference between her wisdom and Paul’s divine wisdom.940 Paul declares that human wisdom941 (“wisdom of the world,” sofi/an tou= ko/smou) is
939
Joop F. M. Smit argues that chapters 1-4 are a coherent unit based on their syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and that Paul is defending himself against the opinions that the followers of Apollos had of him, “‘What is Apollos? What is Paul?’ in Search for the Coherence of First Corinthians 1:10-4:21,” NovT 44 no. 3 (2002): 231251; Morton Smith, “Paul’s Arguments as Evidence of the Christianity from Which He Diverged,” HTR 79, no. 1/3 (1986): 255; cf., Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship, 181-212. 940
Larry J. Waters, “Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles,” BSac 167, no. 668 (2010): 432; L. L. Welborn argues that it is definitely this wisdom is that of the rhetoricians, “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics,” JBL 106, no. 1 (1987): 101-3. 941
This is an interpretation and not a translation. Cf., Thisleton, Corinthians, 155; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 89; Peter Lampe, “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word of the Cross’: The Rhetorical Scheme in 1 Corinthians 1-4,” Int 44 (1990): 117-31.
303 insufficient for the knowledge of God (1 Cor. 1:18-19).942 Moreover, it is something that God destroys and confuses (1 Cor. 1:19-20).943 Paul goes on to assert that God’s wisdom is different from this human wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21) and human wisdom approaches Paul’s message as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18, 1:23). Furthermore, the lowly things of the world will shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). This Christ whose message and work appear foolish is actually the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:30). Paul specifically identifies this wisdom as Greek wisdom ( 3Ellhej sofi/an zhtou=sin; the Greeks seek wisdom) with a phrase that encompasses not only the sophists but the popular philosophies that also have a distinct Greek heritage and hold similar values. 944 Despite his critique of human wisdom, Paul nevertheless plays on what a philosophically educated patroness like Sophia would expect from him. The reciprocal relationship would be something like this: Sophia would give Paul and/or his opponents substantial support for substantial teaching. There would be great reward if the teaching is received as substantial, inspired, or if the patroness is convinced that the teaching will memorialize her gift in perpetuity. In chapters 1-4, Paul makes it clear that he can
942
Cf., V. Koperski. “Knowledge of Christ and Knowledge of God in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. Reimund Bieringer (Lueven: Lueven University Press, 1996), 377-96. 943
John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 36. 944
Hence the dazzling array of possibilities for how to precisely define “sophia.” For bibliography, see Margaret M. Mitchell, who posits that Paul need not refer to one specific “wisdom,” Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 211; Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem: A Study in Earliest Christianity (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 207-14; and the essays edited by Stowers in Paul and his Opponents (2005).
304 accomplish exactly that, and his opponents cannot, no matter how learned or eloquent they are (1 Cor. 1:17-21). In chapter 2:1-5 (and beyond), Paul continues his contrast between human wisdom and divine wisdom. Paul appeals to his previous visit with the Corinthian community: originally Paul proclaimed “the testimony of God” without lofty speech or wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1). Evidently, he did impress Sophia and Fortuna with his presentation of his Gospel in spite of whatever sympathies they had with sophism or popular moral philosophy. Again Paul alludes to the cross of Christ, putting it in opposition to the “lofty speech and wisdom,” which Paul perceives or characterizes that his audience views as “strength.” The repeated appeal to the cross and knowing God through this divine foolishness may simply be a repeat of what Paul taught to Sophia and Fortuna in the first place, so his appeal to this original teaching that attracted them to the church is not so shocking as it would be if they heard this message for the first time upon hearing the epistle. 945 In his opinion, Paul’s original message of the cross was delivered to the Corinthians in weakness, fear, and trembling instead of the strong, forceful, and convincing rhetoric of the sophist or moral philosopher who sought wealth, power, or disciples. This means that Paul is distinguishing himself from a certain type of rhetor that the Corinthians knew well: one that used his/her power of speech for wealth and fame. Paul’s speech and message was not in “plausible words of wisdom, but as he says,
945
Laurence L. Welborn, “Mōros genesthō: Paul’s Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1-4,” Biblical Interpretation 10, no. 4 (2002): 420-435.
305 in the demonstration of the Spirit and power - so that their faith might not rest in human wisdom but in the power of God.946 Because of the dynamics of a literary/artistic patron/client relationship, Sophia would be able, and possibly willing, to lend support to both Paul and his opponents. When Paul discusses sofi/a and the nature of God in 1 Cor. 1:18-31, Sophia’s philosophical education would not be threatened but reinforced. The tension between human sofi/a and God’s wisdom that Paul describes can be easily overcome if she understands her sofi/a to come from God. Pythagoras, with his wife Theano and daughter Damo, was remembered as the founder of a religious sect and the divine was critical to his philophizing. 947 Epicurus, who had in his original school a large circle of women, had high regard for the divine as a foundation for ethics, but did not believe that the gods themselves interfered with the affairs of humans.948 The Epicurean Diogenes of Oneoanda, who preserved Epicurus’s Letter to Mother, also affirmed the divine but with great restraint.949 Cicero, who valued the philosophical education of women, could – at
946
A. van Roon, “Relation between Christ and the Wisdom of God according to Paul,” NovT 16 no. 3 (1974): 207-239. 947
Gregory Vlastos, “Theology and Philosophy in Early Greek Thought,” PQ 2, no. 7 (1952): 97-123; for the theology of Pythagoras see Adam Drozdek, Greek Philosophers as Theologians: The Divine Arche (Burlington: Ashgate, 2007), 53-70. 948
Jaap Mansfeld, “Aspects of Epicurean Theology,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 46, no. 2 (1993): 172-210; Dominic Scott, “Epicurean Illusions,” CQ n.s. 39, no. 2 (1989): 360374. 949
George Depue Hadzsits, “The Personality of the Epicurean Gods,” AJP 37, no. 3 (1916): 318; cf., Kirk Summers, “Lucretius and the Epicurean Tradition of Piety,” C Phil 90, no. 1 (1995): 32-57.
306 least in some of his writings – hold belief in a god in high regard.950 Seneca – who encouraged Helvia and Marcia to apply his philosophy to their lives - understood that the role of philosophy is to understand the divine and the human, and the wise-person can only accomplish this with help from the divine.951 Generally, the authors of the neoPythagorean pseudepigraphon (which claimed to be authored by well known women philosphers), carried on the emphasis that Pythagoras had placed on the divine. Iamblichus, however, specifically believed that the wise-person could not achieve harmonia unless she had help from the gods.952 All that is to say that because Sophia received a general education from the active schools in first century Corinth, she can quite easily identify with Paul’s situation of wisdom and with him see “human wisdom” as at least incomplete for her purposes. Furthermore, if she reads this section as an indictment against Paul’s opponents, as he intends, she can congratulate herself by recognizing and appreciating Paul’s unique potential and support him and the church accordingly. Despite her sympathy for Paul’s message, though, Sophia is likely more than a little shocked at Paul’s identification of intolerable division in the church and that the various divisions must unite under Paul’s
950
Eli Edward Burriss, “Cicero and the Religion of His Day,” CJ 21, no. 7 (1926): 524-532; Ursula Heibges, “Cicero, a Hypocrite in Religion?,” AJP 90, no. 3 (1969): 304-312. 951
Henry F. Burton, “Seneca’s Idea of God,” AJT 13, no. 3 (1909): 350-369; Aldo Setaioli, “Seneca and the Divine: Stoic Tradition and Personal Developments,” IJCT 13, no. 3 (2007): 333-368. 952
Andrew Smith, Porphyry’s Place in the Neo-Platonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neo-Platonism (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974); for the general history of the neo-Pythagoreans see Charles K. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 94-138.
307 banner. However, as a sympathetic reader, she identifies with Paul’s divine wisdom, respects his apostolic authority as founder of the Corinthian church, and at least tolerates his request for his style of unity. Paul positions himself between followers of divine and human wisdom, Jews and Greeks, and the rich and poor by bringing everyone to the same starting point (1 Cor. 1:18-31). Every possible advantageous position: being a non-Jew, a Jew (favor with God), a wealthy and powerful person, and finally even the poor are brought to nothing by the power and wisdom of God. This lack of being – however exactly Paul imagines it and the church interprets it – is the ultimate rhetorical equalizer so that friendship can exist between Paul, philosophically educated women, and the rest of the church. At the very least, despite the fact that Paul has rhetorically aligned himself with the futility of both Greek and non-Greek wisdom, he too has to experience divine wisdom from his divine source. Although Paul is nothing and experiences this divine wisdom through his calling as an apostle, the Corinthians are nothing and can experience his divine wisdom by following his teaching. As a sympathetic reader, Sophia is able to balance her philosophical interests and the divine roots of these teachings with Paul’s understanding of the nature of his. Moving on to 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Sophia is reminded of Paul’s visit and the Gospel that he preached. Paul then continues to separate the human wisdom of his opponents from divine wisdom of God that is in the word of the cross.953 As a student of popular moral philosophy, Sophia recognizes Paul’s characterization of his opponents as having the less attractive qualities of the sophists that Corinth knew well. Paul characterizes the sophists 953
Wire offers a similar interpretation, Corinthian Women Prophets, 51.
308 by an insatiable lust for fame, influence, and fortune. 954 Their grandiose speech was intended to persuade crowds to do or think anything that is to the speaker’s pleasure. It would be easy for a sympathetic reader like Sophia to disassociate herself from Paul’s opponents, even if she did not think that they were as bad as Paul makes them out to be.955 Sophia can recognize the threat that Paul is addressing: if she identifies herself with his opponents, she would be compromising the freedom appropriated to her through the wisdom of the cross. Sophia also detects that Paul is addressing only one offensive practice: the common offenses of the sophists. It makes sense to Sophia that the selfish preaching of the sophists that Paul opposes challenges the concept of selfless love that characterizes the wisdom of the cross.
Reading 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5 with Fortuna Another aspect needs to be examined: Paul’s opponents could include philosophically educated women. Philosophically educated women openly challenged men of their time. For example, Hipparchia the Cynic opposed Theodorus the Atheist at a dinner party and Leontion the Epicurean composed a work against Theophrastus.956 In the late second - early third century CE, the sophist Philostratus was concerned about the security of the patronage of the empress Julia Domna for the sophists after she read a treatise by Plutarch.
954
Witherington, Conflict and Community, 349.
955
Cf., Winter, Philo and Paul, 179-202.
956
Cic. Nat. D. 1.93; Pliny the Elder (Praefatio 29) indicates simply that a woman wrote against Theophrastus even though he was a respected rhetor.
309 For this discussion, I will use Fortuna as a hypothetical example of a philosophically educated woman who is an unsympathetic reader of 1 Corinthians. This is an entirely different interpretative paradigm from that discussed above, because Paul would be pitting himself against a philosophically educated woman rather than attempting to secure their patronage. Paul was opposed from within 957 the church and not from without:958 at some point Fortuna was sympathetic enough to Paul’s message to join Paul’s Corinthian community. Therefore, either she has changed her mind or Paul could no longer tolerate her and the opposition that she supported. Before this falling out, Fortuna supported both Paul and his opponents and was later irritated with him for some reason: possibly his lack of commitment to a philosophical school, his inability to get along with his opponents (her allies), or his strange moral teachings.959 However, all that Paul is willing to admit is that his opponents expect him to be a good sophist/philosopher 960 and question his apostolic authority. 961 Embracing the independent spirit of the philosophically educated woman and asserting her responsibility 957
Chow, Patronage and Power, 114. Welborn calls the opponents’ rhetoric as “distinctively Christian,” Politics and Rhetoric, 65. 958
Richard Liong-Seng Phua imagines attempts by outsiders to infiltrate the Corinthian community, Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 in the Light of the Jewish Diaspora (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 7. 959
Many scholars believe that Paul is dismissing sophistic values, Winter, Philo and Paul, 116-44; Sigurd Grindheim, “Wisdom for the Perfect,” 689-709. 960
Martin, Corinthian Body, 52; Grant, Paul in the Roman World, 25-31Cf., Fredrick J. Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 2; Stanley K. Stowers, “Kinds of Myth, Meals, and Power,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians, ed. Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 116 961
Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric, 83.
310 to think for herself, Fortuna is unimpressed with Paul’s separation of himself from the other sophists in the Corinthian church – possibly in person during his earlier visits (1 Cor 2:1-5) and epistles (1 Cor. 5:9).962 We saw with Sophia in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 that Paul attempted to separate himself from his opponents by the way that he describes what human wisdom cannot do, and that only the Christ of his message can accomplish what sophists claimed that their philosophy was capable of achieving. Sophia was able to tolerate Paul’s message because like Paul, she and those whom she supported also viewed their wisdom to come from a divine source. Fortuna, however, is frustrated by Paul’s message in 1 Cor. 1:1831 for precisely the same reason. She reads Paul attacking the divine source of her wisdom by exclusively associating his divine source with the message of the cross. In other words, according to Paul the divine power of the foolishness of God, the work of the cross, accomplishes what her wisdom cannot do: sw=sai touj pisteu/ontaj (1 Cor. 1:21). Like Sophia, Fortuna considers her wisdom to be “godly wisdom” rather than Paul’s “human wisdom.” With a broad philosophical education, Fortuna is already aware of several contradictory philosophies that claim divine origin, but Paul’s characterization of “Greek wisdom” into one homogenous term is unfair and his claim to an exclusive superiority over all of them is quite alarming. The Cynic, Epicurean, Stoic, Platonic, and Pythagorean wisdom, all with claims of knowledge of the divine to some degree, are not 962
For a review of the various redaction theories of 1 Corinthians, see David R. Hall, The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence (London: T&T Clark, 2003) and P.W. Barnett, The Corinthian Question: Why did the Church Oppose Paul? (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2011).
311 homogenous in their failure to overcome human passion and actualize a relationship with the divine. Fortuna would have a hard time believing that all of these schools has failed so completely, and that Paul could circumvent every means of philosophical enquiry and still attain access to wisdom by means of his calling, bearing the gospel of the crucified Christ (1 Cor. 1:23). However, because of her importance in the community and sympathy for Paul’s opponents, she is able to receive Paul’s hostility with the aloofness of a powerful matron. The presence of Paul’s opponents could actually work in Paul’s favor, if his goal is to retain support for the church from their patroness. Fortuna can support Paul’s opponents, disagree with his teachings and moral philosophy, and the church can still enjoy the benefits that they would receive if she supported Paul alone (and therefore withdraw her support because of his hostility). The direct benefit for Paul is that he can criticize his opponents and the patroness of the church as sharply as he desires without fear of reprisal. Perhaps his apostolic boldness is rooted in the security of a philosophically educated patroness who supports the church due to her interest in his opponents. As Paul develops his argument in 1 Cor. 2:1-5, it can only serve to further alienate Fortuna. She sees it as a great offense that Paul characterizes his “opponents” as people who follow philosophers, rhetoricians, and sophists just because they are captivated by some kind of empty human whim. The moral philosophers condemned the professional rhetoricians much like Paul does in 1 Corinthians, and Fortuna would not appreciate Paul lumping her with a common rhetor. Further, the “weakness” of the cross in itself did not frustrate Fortuna as a philosophically educated woman when she was initially attracted to
312 Paul’s Gospel. Fortuna had no issue with the weak of the world triumphing over the strong: this kind of social status / gender / intellectual / religious inversion is welcome and valuable. While she is not the most defenseless or poorest person in the community, she can identify herself with the “weak” because she lives in a world of injustices directed towards her because of her social status (she is not highest in the social pecking order), gender, and intellectual interests. In Fortuna’s theology, the wisdom of the cross was accessible to people who valued what Paul calls “human wisdom” and isolates from “divine wisdom.” She was attracted to the community and supported it because of its broad tolerances: the activity of both male and female prophets, the participation of people of different social status, and the co-existence of different theologies and practices. After Paul could no longer tolerate these diversities within the community, she does not appreciate her philosophical sensabilities being contrasted with the the preaching of the cross.
Reading 1 Cor. 2:6-3:4 with Sophia Paul continues his distinction between himself and his opponents in 1 Cor. 2:63:4, following the line of thought in 1:18-2:5. Paul again refers to the cross in 2:6-8 in order to distinguish himself from his “opponenets.” He begins by strongly insinuating that only the mature accept his message (1 Cor. 2:6a), and of course his opponents are immature in their enslavement to human passion. Sophia is delighted to be counted among the mature: Paul’s designation matches her self-perception. In contrasting the human wisdom that his opponents seek and divine wisdom, he associates their human wisdom with the doomed thinking of the rulers of the age who crucified Jesus (1 Cor. 2:6b). We can follow the interpretation of “human wisdom” and interpret “τῶν
313 ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου” as “human rulers of this age.” Because these rulers follow doomed human wisdom and not the divine wisdom of God (according to Paul), they did not recognize the divine and crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8). In 1 Cor. 2:9-11, Paul describes the hidden nature of the wisdom of God, which here is that which “God has prepared for those who love him,” who are in this case those who are committed to the gospel of the cross: Paul’s teachings. Paul undermines major forms of human discovery - sight, hearing, and imagination (1 Cor. 2:9) - as a means by which his audience can access the wisdom of God. And then, Paul discusses the difference between the natural and the spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14), on the same line of thought as “human wisdom” (associated with the ‘natural’) and “divine wisdom” (associated with the Spirit of God). Thiselton captures this idea of human wisdom in describing it as “the person who lives on an entirely human level.”963 Paul’s wisdom is received and imparted by means of wisdom taught by the Spirit and does not comprise the wisdom gained by human means and imparted with human rhetoric and sophistry (plausible words of wisdom). The person who values human wisdom is “natural” and cannot receive Paul’s wisdom because his message must be spiritually and not naturally evaluated and received. But Paul and his companions have the mind of Christ and therefore can access and proclaim the words of the wisdom of God. Sophia is not threatened by Paul’s isolation of divine wisdom from the senses, primarily because she understands that he is clearly addressing those who seek human wisdom and not those (like Sophia) who have divine wisdom.
963
Thiselton, Corinthians, 269.
314 In 3:1-4, Paul refers again to a previous visit with the Corinthians, saying that he could not address them as spiritual people (except for the mature ones like Sophia who can receive the words of the cross, the wisdom of God) but as “people of the flesh” and “infants in Christ.” The “people of the flesh,” who apparently can only follow their bodily desires, clarifies nicely the demonization of human wisdom. The moral philosophers often characterized their opponents as people who can only follow their stomaches or passions. The Epicureans (notorious for following their human passions) and sophists (equally notorious for seeking wisdom to fulfill their lust for money) got the brunt of this beating, but of course all was fair in rhetorical polemic.964 In 1 Cor. 3:3, Paul declares that this human wisdom is the cause of jealousy and strife that divided the Corinthians into those who followed Paul and those who claimed Apollos. But Sophia was a member of the faith community, apparently valuing Paul’s message of the cross while pursuing her other intellectual interests. Just as she associates her divine wisdom with Paul’s and she does not affiliate herself with the “rulers of the world” who embraced human wisdom and crucified Jesus, she also understands that her divinely inspired wisdom cannot cause division in the church. In fact, Paul’s preaching complimented the wisdom that she already had, containing within it both affirmations and criticisms of 964
For the anti-Epicurean polemic of the 1st century BCE, see Phillip DeLacy, “Cicero’s Invective against Piso,” TAPA 72 (1941): 49-58; cf. Tadeusz Maslowski, “The Opponents of Lactantius [Inst. VII. 7, 7-13],” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 7, (1974): 187-213; P. A. van der Waerdt, “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man,” CQ, n.s., 37, no. 2 (1987): 402-422; Pamela Gordon, “Some Unseen Monster: Reading Lucretius on Sex,” in The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body, ed. David Frederick (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 86-109; Geert Roskam, A Commentary on Plutarch’s De latenter vivendo (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007); Henry Dyson, “Pleasure and the Sapiens: Seneca De vita Beata 11.1,” C Phil 105, no. 3 (2010): 313-318. For sophists, see Winter, Philo and Paul, 116-25.
315 popular moral philosophy. With her broad education, Sophia is accustomed to learning a philosophy and hearing a dedicated teacher or educated friend criticize other schools, sometimes perhaps harshly. In spite of this, like other patrons of the arts, she could support a teacher or be friends with a person who criticizes philosophical teachings that she embraces.
Reading 1 Cor. 2:6-3:4 with Fortuna Fortuna reads Paul as undermining her philosophical interests. As in 1 Cor. 1:21, where Paul declares that the knowledge of God is inaccessible to “human wisdom,” in 1 Cor. 2:7, Paul plainly states that the wisdom that he imparts is the secret and hidden wisdom of God. It is not human wisdom, but divine wisdom that apparently only Paul and his companions can impart, and no one can have access to divine wisdom unless Paul mediates it. The sustained disassociation of human wisdom with divine wisdom in 1 Cor. 2:6-3:4 (and beyond) is infuriating and increasingly nonsensical to Fortuna - who is tolerant of “human” wisdom because of her interest in Epicureanism, but attentive to the gods and the sources of divine wisdom in philosophical schools like Stoic, neoPythagoreanism, and Platonic thought. The stark opposition that Paul tries to establish between the “human wisdom” and “divine wisdom” is made even more offensive because of the association of “human wisdom” with the “human rulers” of this word that crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8). Fortuna possibly detected a glimmer of hope when Paul explains that the divine wisdom that he associates himself with is prepared for the ones that love God in 1 Cor. 2:9. Fortuna certainly identified herself as lover of wisdom and a lover of God – maybe not in the sense that Paul would prefer - so this passage can cause some confusion
316 because of how Paul applies it in 1 Cor. 2:12-14. If Fortuna and Paul’s “opponents” consider themselves to be lovers of God, why would Paul take issue with them? And Paul takes issue violently, attacking them in familiar fashion: it is symptomatic of human wisdom that those who seek it must live by their base human passions and because of this they do not have access to divine wisdom (1 Cor. 2:14). As such, they put themselves at odds with God’s wisdom, and are divided because of this weakness (1 Cor. 3:3). So not only are Paul’s opponents unable to access divine wisdom, they are affiliated with the rulers of this age who crucified Christ and responsible for divisions in the church because of their tendency to follow human wisdom. Paul’s isolation of human wisdom from divine wisdom is an unbearable restraint on Fortuna’s intellectual and spiritual freedom rooted in her theology of the cross. Paul’s teaching here corrects Fortuna’s theology of the cross: she does not have the freedom to support his opponents and have a correct relationship with cruficified Christ. If so, Paul argues that Fortuna will be more like the rulers of the world that crucified Christ rather than a believer who participates in the freedom of the cross. Fortuna, along with her allies, simply cannot accept the nature of Paul’s polemic, other than recognizing that he is denigrating members of the group to increase his own credibility. Although many of them had heard it before, the sting of being on the receiving end of this kind of polemic was an alienating experience.
Reading 1 Cor. 3:5-4:5 with Sophia Like most of the epistle, 1 Cor. 3:5-4:5 was likely viewed quite differently by Paul and those whom he opposed – some may well have better identified with Apollos but like Paul, understood Apollos and Paul to be unified in such a way that to identify with one is to identify with the other. Sophia (and Fortuna) probably understood the
317 factions as believers that could exist in unity, just as in Paul’s mind he and Apollos were workers toiling together with the same divine purpose: to build the Corinthian church, which is a building of God (1 Cor. 3:9). The reception of these two different characters from the Corinthian community’s perspective, however, likely could have been quite a bit different than the unity that Paul imagines. Paul uses a familiar Socratic ti/ .. construction “what is x (or x-ness)” in 1 Cor. 3:5, “ti/ ou} e0stin A0pollw=j; ti/ de/ e0stin Pau=loj.”965 For Paul, he and Apollos are both servants of God with a different role, explained metaphorically as Paul planting, Apollos watering, and God giving growth (1 Cor. 3:6-9). This metaphor is extended to clearly reinforce Paul’s superior apostolic authority.966 Paul presents himself as the master builder who lays the foundation and Apollos built on the excellent foundation that Paul laid (1 Cor. 3:11-15).967 This building, the people of the church, is not just any building but a holy temple of God, and the sanctity (or unity) of the church is sealed with the assured destruction for those who are hostile to it (1 Cor. 3:16-17), especially those who value a wisdom that Paul does not (1 Cor. 3:18-20): his idea of “worldly wisdom”
965
Some scholars use the letter F instead of the letter X so as not to confuse the reader who may think of the mathematical x. For bibliography on the “what is x(-ness)” question, see Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom: The Model of Knowledge in Plato’s Early Dialogues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 100; cf., Thiselton, Corinthians, 299; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 56. 966
Donald P. Ker, “Paul and Apollos--Colleagues or Rivals,” JSNT 77 (2000): 88.
967
Cf., Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 43.
318 (human wisdom). After all, the Lord has found out the thoughts of the ones who seek worldly wisdom, and their wisdom is futile (1 Cor 3:20).968 At first it seems prudent to examine how Sophia would read Paul’s usage of the Socratic construct “what is x?” in 1 Cor. 3:5. Unfortunately, not much can be read into the “what is x” construct because Paul does not peer into the heart of a matter using a Socratic query into x-ness (what is good, what is being, etc). Sophia’s broad philosophical education would have exposed her to any number of varieties of this type of query.969 However, by the time Sophia received her philosophical education, the Socratic “what is x” query had been grafted so much into the particular philosophical schools970 that one can no longer attribute meaning to the construct beyond its rhetorical usage by Paul, which does not carry with it any type of philosophical query. In the metaphors of the planting, builder // building, and the temple, the roles of Paul, Apollos, and God seamlessly flow together, with Paul explaining that he and Apollos are nothing because only God gives the growth and Jesus is the foundation. While Sophia acknowledges God as the source of wisdom, Paul characterizes these
968
Cf., Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians, SBL Dissertation Series 134 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992), 146. 969 970
Epict. Disc. 4.1.41; cf., 2.11.
The Socratic formulation does appear in Antisthenes the Cynic, frag. 44b, 47ab, 60 (Caizzi). J. I. Porter, “The Philosophy of Aristo of Chios,” in The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy, ed. Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé and Robert B. Branham (Berkely: University of California Press, 1996), 185. “There is another allusion to Pythagorean definition, 1078b 21-23, where it appears that they are said to define because they ask ‘What is X?,’” Philip, Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism, 222. It shows up again in Iambl. VP 82; Cic. Off. 2.83; 3.55; Tusc. 1.64, 1.75 and elsewhere, for full discussion see J. G. F. Powell, Cato maior de senectute (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 110.
319 opponents as severely handicapped by human thinking that causes separation from his teaching and therefore they are divorced from whatever interaction with God that one can achieve by receiving his message as he intends it to be received (1 Cor. 3:18-21a). Unity and harmony in the community are not foreign ideas to Sophia. In fact, the concept of unity as described by Paul is likely the most significant point of confusion for her as a philosophically educated patroness. As long as she supported the church, the community would be unified under her care, and she would make certain that no immoral thing would be going on inside of her household. The kind of disunity that Paul speaks of is rooted in human wisdom that is gained by following human passions. In popular moral philosophy, the unbridled following of human passion is what leads to every kind of immorality – the kind of things that could cause unpleasant consequences for Sophia if she continued to support the kind of unruly group that Paul portrays his opponents to be. While Paul’s characterization of his opponents is rhetorical, it does seem that at least part of it is true, at least from Paul’s point of view. There probably was sexual immorality, boasting, and criticism of Paul because he did not embody sophistic values. Paul did explain that their bad behavior came from their bad thinking, and that correct thinking would help fix the problem. The idea is that correct thinking leads to correct behavior and a correct relationship with the divine (often because correct thinking comes from the divine). The problem is that there was wide disagreement as to what correct thinking was, and this struggle is definitely something that makes perfect sense to Sophia.
320 Paul exhorts the Corinthians not to boast in human beings (1 Cor. 3:21), who are at best the source of human wisdom. 971 Interesting is that Cephas is mentioned again without warning, further confirming that Paul is attacking the followers of Apollos in his separation of human wisdom and divine wisdom. Paul’s divisions of the Corinthians into followers of himself, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ are almost certainly intentionally artificial. By choosing these labels and then rhetorically unifying these figures in divine purpose, and their product into one temple, Paul is tactfully addressing corresponding issues.972 However, while the Cephas and Christ groups may not have existed, there were certainly opponents that Paul characterizes as followers of Apollos who valued human wisdom. 973 Even though Paul mentioned the divisions in 1 Cor. 1:12, it is a bit late in the epistle to paint his opponents in a positive light by rhetorically uniting hypothetical groups that may follow himself, Christ, and Apollos. If Paul had not spent so much time characterizing the human wisdom of the followers of Apollos so negatively, making it impossible for them to have knowledge of God and access to morality, his tactful arguments for unity might be a bit more convincing. Can it really be said by Paul that his opponents, the followers of Apollos, are so unified with the community that they can be
971
See the discussion in Winter, Philo and Paul, 186-202.
972
Collins suggests that the early Corinthian Christians knew of Cephas only by reputation and Paul’s use of the name to designate a certain person or group was in itself tactful and unifying: there is no difference between Paul and Cephas, so it is an appeal for unity rather than a description of a Petrine group, Corinthians, 80. Cf., J. Paul Sampley, “Forward,” in Paul and Rhetoric, ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), xii. 973
Smit, “Who is Apollos, What is Paul?,” 231-51.
321 thought of as one temple, one building, and one work of God? Can it really be said that Paul’s opponents, who, he argues, are severely handicapped by the follies of human wisdom, comprise the ones for whom Paul laid the foundation, Apollos watered, and God caused to grow, along with everyone else? Sophia can certainly understand the importance of unity and the ability for Paul’s “opponents” to coexist with the rest of the community. The confusing aspect is that Paul can engage in polemic with people in the community and then declare that they are indeed unified. When Paul writes “all things belong to you,” in 1 Cor. 3:21 Sophia could understand him to be employing intentionally the Stoic maxim “all things belong to the wise-person.”974 This maxim is found in Seneca, Cicero, and Diogenes Laertius – all of whom are important sources for women in philosophy. A critical issue is the question of whom Paul is addressing here. It is possible that Paul is using a maxim from human philosophy in an ironic fashion – those who truly claim Apollos, Cephas, and Christ actually are unified when they follow the teachings of Paul – and it is the one who follows Paul’s idea of divine wisdom and not human wisdom who receives the reward and promises of both types of wisdom. Or is Paul addressing all the believers / hearers of the epistle?975 Whoever Paul is addressing belongs to Christ’s and Christ is God’s. Paul here extends the idea of the Stoic wise-person “all things belong to you” to the
974
Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; Collins, Corinthians, 66, Lindemann, Corinthians, 93; cf., Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 208; Collins, Corinthians, 166. For ancient references, Cic. Fin. 3.22.75; 4.27.74; Sen. Ben. 7.5 and Ep. 109.1; Diog. Laert. 6.37; 7.124-5. 975
So Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 208; probably Collins, Corinthians, 166; Ciampa, Corinthians, 168.
322 community of believers in general, which is significant because it is the general believer who achieves wisdom and not only the one who seeks worldly wisdom. The Stoic maxim that Paul uses is unmistakeable to Sophia. The most basic philosophical education would include the definition of the person who actualizes wisdom: the wise-person. When a philosopher describes their particular school’s wiseperson, it is often explained in terms of contrast with the wise-person of another school. According to tradition, Diogenes the Cynic “reasoned that all things belong to the gods; the wise are friends of the gods; since friends have all things in common, all things belong to the wise.”976 The Stoics used the maxim “all things belong to the wise man” as opposed to the Epicurean position. For example, Seneca argues against an unnamed Epicurean who includes the use of prostitutes in “all things that belong to the wise man”: 'Is,' inquit, ' cuius prostitutae sunt, leno est; omnia autem sapientis sunt ; inter omnia et prostitutae sunt ; ergo prostitutae sapientis sunt. Leno autem est, cuius prostitutae sunt ; ergo sapiens leno est,' Sic illum vetant emere, dicunt enim: ' Nemo rem suam emit ; omnia autem sapientis sunt ; ergo sapiens nihil emit.' Sic vetant mutuum sumere, quia nemo usuram pro pecunia sua pendat. Innumerabilia sunt, per quae cavillantur, cum pulcherrime, quid a nobis dicatur, intellegant. “He to whom courtezans belong,” argues our adversary, “must be a procurer: now courtezans are included in all things, therefore courtezans belong to the wise man. But he to whom courtezans belong is a procurer; therefore the wise man is a procurer.” Yes! by the same reasoning, our opponents would forbid him to buy anything, arguing, “No man buys his own property. Now all things are the property of the wise man; therefore the wise man buys nothing.” By the same reasoning they object to his borrowing, because no one pays interest for the use of his own money. They raise endless quibbles, although they perfectly well understand what we say. 977
976
Diog. Laert. 6.72 = Diogenes, Ep. 9. For notes and bibliography, see Klauk, Anient Letters, 74-5. 977
Sen. Ben. 7.4.
323 In 1 Cor. 4:1-5, Paul dictates to the Corinthians how they should regard him and his associates. Paul and his associates, being bearers of divine wisdom, are “servants (u9phre/taj) of Christ and stewards (oi0kono/mouj) of the mysteries of God.” The idea of stewardship extends the idea of Paul and his associates as planters and builders, and God as the one who causes growth and Jesus Christ is the foundation. As a steward978 Paul probably has a slave in mind who manages their master’s property according to their master’s liking.979 The lowly position of Paul and his associates receives elaboration later in the chapter (1 Cor. 4:9-13). Like a slave in the house of God, Paul has intimate access to the wisdom of God and manages its distribution according to God’s purpose.980 As servants of God and Christ, no one in the community or outside of it can judge or challenge the nature of the divine wisdom and practice of Paul and his associates. Sophia is only slightly insulted that Paul associates himself with the lowest public position in the city, and even on the level of a slave. Yet Paul says that he is the steward of the mysteries of God: he is the teacher of the divine wisdom that his opponents cannot touch. Indeed, because of his access to divine wisdom that he can be indifferent to the worldly power and status. This is a virtue that Sophia can value. Paul’s teachings here set some boundaries to Sophia’s freedom. However, the boundaries are tolerable and familiar. Paul’s concept of self-control is a familiar and welcome constraint on freedom: the loss of self-control isolates one from divine wisdom.
978
The same term that Paul uses with Erastus in Rom. 16:23.
979
John Byron, “Slave of Christ or Willing Servant? Paul’s Self-description in 1 Corinthians 4:1-2 and 9:16-18,” Neot 37 no. 2 (2003): 179-198. 980
TDNT 8:542.
324 Self-control brought about by philosophical discipline and fellowship with the divine have defined Sophia’s intellectual pursuits, so Paul’s criticism of the lack of these virtues is welcome.
Reading 1 Cor. 3:4-4:5 with Fortuna Paul’s discussion of the nature of Apollos, himself, and the divine is confusing for Fortuna. Paul has just said in 1 Cor. 3:3-4 that the followers of human wisdom are the cause of division – when in fact it is possible that no division actually exists – and then in 1 Cor. 3:10-17 he claims that everyone in the community, no matter who they would hypothetically claim as their inspiration, are actually unified because they are one sacred building built on one divine foundation. From Paul’s perspective, the metaphors of the field, the building, and the temple in 1 Cor. 3:5-17 are all in direct response to the jealousy and division brought about by the lack of self-control of the seekers of human wisdom in 1 Cor. 3:3-4, and he immediately returns to this theme in 1 Cor. 3:18-21a. Fortuna understands that her wisdom comes from a divine source, but since it is not necesarrily Paul’s interpretation of divine wisdom, there is plenty of room for an unsympathetic reading here, particularly because Paul has frustrated Fortuna from the beginning of the epistle with his juxtaposition of human and divine wisdom. It is offensive to Fortuna that Paul uses tidbits of philosophical ideas and constructs, yet claims to have the benefits of mastering a philosophical method while characterizing “human wisdom” as completely different from his “divine wisdom.” If Fortuna caught the Socratic construction, it serves as a definite sign that Paul has no intention of pursuing any concept even remotely related to philosophical inquiry. Paul then can declare that “all things belong to you,” that is, those who have not followed
325 philosophical inquiry to explore God, themselves, and anything else. It is impossible that those who inquire about God through the popular philosophical schools can actually know God, but Paul uses a Stoic maxim related to the wise-person to describe people in the community whose understanding of wisdom that he can tolerate. Not only can his opponents not know God – they do not have access to the desired outcome of their philosophy – this to Fortuna is deeply divisive and insulting. Fortuna sees Paul constraining freedom so severely that an entire group of believers who were attracted to the community based on this theology of the cross are now excluded from their method of understanding God and themselves. The exercise that enabled Fortuna to participate in the community while retaining her philosophical heritage was dismissed by Paul. Human wisdom was much more than half of Fortuna’s philosophical experience. Her philosophical methods – human wisdom - were the means by which she exercised self-control and became aware of the divine. Because of her intellectual freedom, she was able to value competing philosophies and incorporate Pauline teachings into this experience. This freedom works both ways: her philosophical experience can tolerate her Christian experience, and her Christian experience compliments her philosophical education. Paul chooses to upset this balance by artificially seperating divine and human wisdom and philosophical outcomes from philosophical (human/divine) methods.
Reading 1 Cor. 4:6-21 with Sophia As a supporter of Paul, Sophia is likely familiar with the ways in which Paul’s ministry differs from the values of the sophists. In 1 Cor. 4:6-13, Paul expands on his lowly status by contrasting it with the status of his opponents. Paul has already
326 associated divine wisdom as appearing foolish to those who value human wisdom, and now the deliverer of this divine wisdom is made low in every way. Paul refers to his opponents as kings and wealthy (1 Cor. 4:8), perhaps indicating the wealth of his educated patroness, Sophia. Perhaps a plea for unity with Fortuna – who he knows may well be frustrated by this epistle - is in Paul’s wish that his opponents could actually rule so Paul could be elevated from his lowly state and rule with them (1 Cor. 4:8b). In contrast to the weathly and powerful people in the community – especially his opponenets who seek human wisdom - Paul presents himself and his associates as publically humiliated in the extreme, and they are fools for the sake of their audience. The apostles are hungry and thirsty, inadequately clothed, abused and homeless, they work with their hands, they are despised, reviled, presecuted, and slandered (1 Cor. 4:113).981 When Paul contrasts himself with the Corinthians as “kings,” Sophia982 can read Paul as saying that the Corinthians are not in reality as powerful as they think they are.983 Paul would be contrasting a metaphor – the authority, power, and wealth of the Corinthians, the “kings” – with the actual suffering of the apostles. This metaphor brings Paul’s loss of status in sharp contrast to the rising status of some of his audience. 984 In spite of Paul’s rhetoric and Sophia’s sympathies toward Greek philosophy, she 981
1 Cor. 4:11-3 has been identified as a Stoic hardship list by Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel; Garcilazo, The Corinthian Dissenters, 8. 982
It is critical to note once again that the focus here is on how Sophia - a wealthy philosophically educated woman - would read 1 Corinthians. Her reading does not speak for Paul's entire audience, or what this passage says about other readers. 983
Wire's focus on the Corinthian women prophets produces a different reading than Sophia, a wealthy philosophically educated woman. 984
Cf., Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 188-9.
327 recognizes that Paul is focusing his invective on his opponents, not her. Sophia does not think of herself as an all-knowing and all powerful queen while Paul suffers without her help. Paul associates himself with poverty, and his suffering highlights his need for and value of her continued support of the church. According to Paul, the actual suffering of the apostles and the metaphor of the Corinthians as kings were not meant to shame the Corinthians (however, Paul makes it clear that he is actually mocking them by calling attention to it in 1 Cor. 4:14). Paul then presents himself as a kind of idealistic father who lovingly admonishes his children rather than shames them when they need discipline (1 Cor. 4:15). So, as their father in Jesus Christ through the Gospel, they are to imitate him (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1).985 The appeal to the role of the father is an unmistakable appeal to authority, and imitation is as important concept in Paul’s apostle as it is in ancient philosophy.986 At this point, it seems that the love of the father is a very thin veil over an exhortation to follow more closely after Paul’s teaching rather than that of his opponents. Paul sent Timothy specifically for the purpose of reminding them of Paul’s previous visits, which is what Paul referred to himself earlier in the epistle (1 Cor. 4:17). Apparently, Paul was very confident that his presence - whether in person, through Timothy, or by way of rhetoric – is an unstoppable unifying force (1 Cor. 4:18-21). Paul argues that if he were present, then his opponents
985 986
Clarke, Serve the Community, 218-27.
David Stanley, “Imitation in Paul’s Letters: Its Significance for his Relationship to Jesus and his own Christian Foundations,” in From Jesus to Paul, 127141; Elizabeth Anne Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991); Malberbe, “Exhortation,” 240-1; Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 290.
328 would be reminded of his authority and the power of his gospel would bring everyone into the kind of unity that Paul can tolerate. Again Paul uses a format that would be familiar to Sophia: the Stoic hardship list in 1 Cor. 4:9-13. The hardship list points to the prestige of the wise-person, who can withstand any hardship with magnanimity. It is difficult to imagine that Sophia did not know such a basic concept, especially due to its popularity and the debates that the popular schools had concerning the nature of the wise-person.987 Paul’s endurance of hardship is something that she can respect: he is able to achieve the status of a Stoic wiseperson without actually being a Stoic sage. His faithfulness to his calling has achieved a truly brilliant outcome, and she and the community have access to the divine power that enabled such an accomplishment if they imitate him. Sophia knows that her wisdom comes from a divine source, and if she actualizes it properly, she too can endure hardship with magnanimity like Paul. If she dares to believe that Paul is a successful pattern, she could value his company as a partner in dialog.
Reading 1 Cor. 4:6-21 with Fortuna Just as Paul can use the Stoic maxim “all things belong to the wise-person” (1 Cor. 3:21) to people who have not followed a philosophical method to achieve wisdom, he applies the qualities of the Stoic wise-person to himself (1 Cor. 4:9-13), when he had no right. Fortuna knew about Diogenes the Cynic, famous in Corinth, who said that all things belong to the gods, and because the wise-person is friends with the gods and friends hold all things in common, that all things belong to the wise-person. However, 987
See especially Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel.
329 Paul is no Diogenes. While Diogenes’s reasoning works well with Paul to a point, there is a significant difference in how one becomes friends with God. Fortuna understands that for Paul, it is his calling as an apostle that enables him to preach the word of the Gospel, which is the foolishness of the cross, the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:21). Because of his calling as apostle, Paul claims that he is able to endure the hardships of the wiseperson (1 Cor. 4:9). If Paul had not completely alienated Fortuna by this point of the letter, perhaps she could be sympathetic to Paul’s rhetorical or actual suffering (1 Cor. 4:11-13). But to claim the identity and virtues of the Stoic wise-person without actually following their teachings988 has no persuasive power for Fortuna. Paul’s reference to his personal visits to Corinth, while they may have been pleasant experience for her, is probably not the most effective rhetorical tactic that he could have used to capure Fortuna’s favor. This sentiment is compounded by Paul’s reasoning for sending Timothy and his threat of a future visit (1 Cor. 4:14-21). After repeatedly devaluing her philosophical experience, positively applying the desired outcome to people who did not even discipline themselves according to a popular school, and then applying qualities of a wise-person to himself, a good memory of Paul’s visit or the threat of his coming would have little persuasive effect for Fortuna. She will continue to support the Christian community at Corinth because of the unity that she valued before Paul wrote this epistle, and the unity in diversity that the other members of the community enjoy, but Paul’s rhetoric was simply unsuccessful with her. 988
Cf., Abraham J. Malherbe, “Paul: Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor?,” ATJ 68, no. 1 (1986): 3-13; Alain Badiou, “Paul, the Founder of the Universal Subject,” in St. Paul Among the Philosphers, ed. John D. Caputo and Linda Martin Alcoff (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 30-1.
330 Conclusion: Reading 1 Corinthians 1-4 with Sophia and Fortina In chapter 5, we have read the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians with two hypothetical philosophically educated women: Sophia and Fortuna. Their backgrounds share some similarities. First, they are both wealthy widows who are patronesses of the church. As such, they are able to control their wealth and more freely engage in philosophical discourse. Second, both women have broad philosophical interests and are aware of the basic teachings of the popular philosophical schools: Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Platonism, and neo-Pythagoreanism. Third, both women were attracted to Paul’s theology of the cross that brings social and theological freedom to the community. When Paul distinguishes divine wisdom from human wisdom, and as an expression of freedom to balance philosophical education and a theology of the cross, both Sophia and Fortuna understand that they already possess a balance of human and divine wisdom. However, as Paul further develops his arguments, Sophia contines to identify with Paul’s divine wisdom but Fortuna is frustrated by his sustained division of divine and human wisdom. Fortuna is further alienated by Paul as he uses philosophical teachings and claims to have qualities of the ideal wise-person without following a philosophical method. In chapter six, I will discuss how Sophia and Fortuna would read Paul’s teachings concerning marriage and worship.
CHAPTER 6: MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND WORSHIP IN 1 CORINTHIANS
In this chapter, I will focus on the question of what would Sophia and Fortuna know about marriage if they had the broad philosophical education of a wealthy Corinthian patroness. What might these women be exposed to at the Isthmain games or a dinner party that feature discussion by a variety of people in an intellectual circle? These questions will be addressed by outlining the views of the popular schools regarding marriage. Then, I will read Paul’s material related to marriage and family in 1 Corinthians with Sophia and Fortuna, with special emphasis on how Paul uses this material to encourage unity in Christian worship. This chapter will review Paul’s teachings on marriage (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6.9-20; 7.140), especially with respect to the nature of household worship (1 Cor. 11:1-16).989 Every time that Paul addresses worship in 1 Corinthians, he does so in the context of teachings concerning marriage and family. In 1 Cor 11:3, Paul explains that the head of the wife is the husband, he gives his teaching concerning the role of women prophets in Christian worship. In 1 Cor. 14:26-40, Paul gives further instructions concerning the role of prophets in Christian worship, followed by a teaching concerning the silence of women in the churches and that husbands should teach their wives at home.
989
In 4.5.9, I addressed the 1 Cor. 14:33-5 and argued that it was not Pauline and therefore not an issue for further discussion.
331
332 Marriage and Family in the Popular Philosophers Instructions concerning marriage and family were common topics in both the popular philosophers and some philosophically educated women. Teachings concerning the passions played no small role in addressing these issues.990 There are parallels to Paul’s approach in the philosophers who teach and encourage women to practice philosophy but relegate them to their contemporary gender roles. In the following sections, I will address writings of the Pythagoreans and neo-Pythagoreans as well as the Roman Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics, and Platonists.
The Pythagoreans and neo-Pythagoreans There is some material in the older Pythagorean writers that address marriage and family and while the neo-Pythagorean corpus has strained connections with the earliest groups, the traditions concerning the importance of marriage is intact. For that reason, I will begin with the older traditions (such as the teachings of Theano which may have their source in Aristotle) and then focus on the writings which may reflect the knowledge or opinions of a first century follower of the school. The Neo-Pythagoreans inherited a rich tradition of focus on the family from legends concerning Pythagoras and his earliest followers. The legacy of these followers, led by his disciple wife Theano and his daughter Damo, inspired later writers to author works in their name. The precise date of the Pythagorean pseudipigrapha is unknown, but as a whole it reflects popular 1st century values. The difficulty with these writings, other than date, is that they contain no
990
John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought (London: Routledge, 2008).
333 relationship with any philosophy except that they are attributed to well-known philosophically educated women. From these writings we can see that Pythagorean women were fondly remembered by some writers and their audiences, and there indeed are some paralells with Paul’s moral teachings. 991 Several writings/sayings are attributed to the Pythagorean Theano, who lived in the sixth century BCE but some of the extant writings are dated as late as second century CE. The works attributed to Theano are Pythagorean Apophthems, Female Advice, On Piety, On Pythagoras, Philosophical Commentaries and Letters. Of these, all except the Letters survive in a handful of fragments. And it is in the Letters that we find the most substantive similiarity to Paul, specifically the letter to Eurydice (dated 3rd BCE). In this epistle, Theano gives instructions regarding how she should handle the problem of her husband sleeping with a prostitute. In a similar manner, Theano (3rd BCE) says that Eurydice should not be a jealous wife but inspire her husband by her virtue to change his ways. Theano addresses the same issue in her epistle to Nicostrate, using the metaphor of the body: gameth~j ga_r a)reth& e0stin ou)x h( parath&rhsij ta)ndro&j, a)ll’ h( sumperifora&: sumperifora_ de/ e0sti to_ fe/rein a1noian. ei]q’ e9tai/ra men pro_j h(donh_n o(milei=, gameth ~ de pro_j to_ sumfe/ron: sumfe/ron de kakoi=j kaka_mh_ mi/sgein, mhde paranoi/a para&noian e0pa&gein..e9auth_n de parekte/on e0pithdei/an tai=j diallagai=j: ta_ ga_r kala_ h1qh kai par’ e0xqroi=j eu1noian fe/rei, fi/lh, kai mo&nhj kalokagaqi/aj e1rgon e0stin h( timh&, tau&th de kai dunato_n a)ndro_j e0cousi/an kaqupere/xein gunaiki/, kai tima~sqai ple/on h2 qerapeu&ein to_n e0xqro&n. For the virtue of a wife is not in watching over her husband, but bearing things in common with him. And bearing things in common with him is to bear his madness. If he mixes with a prostitute for his pleasure, he does so with his wife for his advantage. It is an advantage not to mix evils with evils, nor to add madness 991
Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists,” 380-411.
334 with madness… prepare yourself for reconciliation. For a fine character and high regard even from enemies, my friend, and honor is the outcome of a true nobility. Through this it is possible for a woman’s authority to exceed a man’s, and for her to he honoured even more, rather than serve her enemy. 992 Perictione (3rd BCE) – taking the name of Plato’s mother - notes that adultery is a pleasure for men only, because women and not men are punished for it.993 The importance of marriage and family life in Pythagoreanism is expressed in many ways as Iamblichus (245-325 CE) tells the story of Phythagoras (c. 570-495 BCE) and his early followers. According to Iamblichus, Pythagoras taught that husbands and wives should be faithful to each other and win the affection of children through affection and not force.994 It is also relevant to note that Pythagoras successfully persuaded women to dress with humility and assigned divine rank to three parts of a woman’s life: “the unmarried woman was called Core, or Proserpine, a bride Nympha, a matron, Mother, in the Doric dialect, Maia.”995 Porphyry (284-305 CE) writes that women participated as hearers of Pythagoras’s early lectures: “Through this he achieved great reputation, he drew great audiences from the city, not only of men, but also of women, among whom was a specially illustrious person named Theano” (6th BCE), “genome/nwn de tou&twn mega&lh peri au)tou~ hu)ch&qh do&ca, kai pollou_j men e1laben e0c au)th~j th~j po&lewj o(milhta_j ou) mo&non a1ndraj a)lla_ kai gunai=kaj, w{n mia~j ge Qeanou~j.”996 Ocellus 992
Theano to Nicostrate (Theano, Fragmenta, TLG pg 198, 199).
993
Perictione, On the Nature of Women (Perictione, Fragmenta TLG pg. 104 = Stob. 4.28.19). 994
Iambl. VP 9.48.
995
Iambl. VP 9.49; cf., Diog. Laert. 8.10 = Timaeus FGrH 566 F 13b.
996
Porph. VP 19.4.
335 Lucanus, a 5th BCE Pythagorean, wrote that husbands should marry women their age and status – and more importantly – a woman who is not weathlier: h( men ga_r u(pere/xousa plou&tw kai ge/nei kai fi/loij a1rxein proairei=tai tou~ a)ndro_j para_ to_n th~j fu&sewj no&mon, o( de/ ge diamaxo&menoj dikai/wj kai ou) deu&teroj a)lla_ prw~toj qe/lwn ei]nai a)dunatei= th~j h(gemoni/aj e0fike/sqai. For the wife who surpasses her husband in wealth, in birth, or in friends, is desirous of ruling over him, contrary to the law of nature. But the husband justly resisting this desire of superiority in his wife, and wishing not to be the second, but the first in domestic sway, is unable, in the management of his family, to take the lead.997 A pseudonymous work attributed to Charondas the Catanean (5th BCE, work preceeds Stobaeus) teaches that husbands and wives should be faithful to one another: Gunai=ka de th_n kata_ no&mouj e3kastoj sterge/tw kai e0k tau&thj teknopoiei/sqw, ei0j a1llo de mhden proi”e/sqw te/knwn tw~n au(tou~ spora&n: mhde to_ fu&sei kai no&mw ti/mion a)no&mwj a)naliske/tw kai u(brize/tw. h( ga_r fu&sij teknopoii/aj e3neken, ou)k a)kolasi/aj e0poi/hse th_n spora&n. Gunai=ka de swfronei=n xrh_ kai mh_ prosde/xesqai sunousi/an a)sebh~ par’ a1llwn a)ndrw~n, w(j a)pantw&shj neme/sewj para_ daimo&nwn e0coikistw~n kai e0xqropoiw~n. Let every one dearly love his lawful wife and beget children by her. But let none shed the seed due his children into any other person, and let him not disgrace that which is honorable by both nature and law. For nature produced the seed for the sake of producing the children, and not for the sake of lust. A wife should be chaste, and refuse impious connection with other men, as by so doing she will subject herself to the vengeance of the geniuses, whose office it is to expel those to they are hostile from their houses, and to produce hatred.998 Charondas is mentioned here because of his later association with Pythagorism which appears rather thin because it was common practice for the ancients to associate the
997
Ocell. De universi natura, 4.6; cf., Callicratidas frag. 106. Translation in Balch, “Neo-Pythagorean Moralists,” 398; cf., Thomas Taylor, Ocellus, 24. 998
Charondas frag. 62. Translation in Gutherie, Iamblichus, 112.
336 famous law-givers with Pythagorianism. 999 However, the writer who attributed this writing to him as a Pythagorean preserves common Pythagorean traditions. As Pythagoras taught his daughter philosophy, the neo-Pythagorean Callicratidas (date unknown) 1000 wrote that husbands – as a duty of managing their wives - should teach their wives: poti lo&gon de mnasteusa&menon to_n ga&mon dei= kai e0pi/tropon kai ku&rion e0pista&tan ta~j au(tw~ gunaiko_j ei]men e0pi/tropon men tw ~ fronti/zein tw~n e0kei/naj, ku&rion de tw ~ a1rxen kai kurieu&ein, dida&skaloi de tw ~ dida&skein ta_ de/onta. The husband should be his wife’s regulator, master and preceptor. Regulator, in paying diligent attention to his wife’s affairs; master, in governing, and exercising authority over her, and preceptor in teaching her such things as are fitting for her to know.1001 The importance of harmony in the state and the home is critical to Callicratidas (Stob. 4.28.17 = TLG pg 106). This concept is expressed again in Polus the Pythagorean: e0n ko&smw men w}n au)ta_ ta_n o3lan a)rxa_n diastratagou~sa pro&noia& te kai a(rmoni/a kai @1di/ka kai nw~j tino_j qew~n ou3tw yaficame/nw: e0n po&lei de ei0ra&na te kai eu)nomi/a dikai/wj ke/klhtai: e0n oi1kw d’ e1sti a)ndro_j men kai gunaiko_j pot’ a)lla&lwj o(mofrosu&na. oi0keta~n de poti despo&taj eu1noia, despota~n de poti qera&pontaj kademoni/a: e0n sw&mati de kai yuxa ~ pra~ta qera&pontaj kademoni/a: It conducts the whole world government and is called providence, harmony, and vengeance, by the decrees of a certain kind of geniuses. In a city it is justly called peace, and equitable legislation. In a house, it is the concord between husband and wife; the kindliness of the servant towards his master, and the anxious care of the
999
Kahn, Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, 70; cf., J. S. Morrison, “Pythagoras of Samos,” CQ n.s. 6, no. 3 (1956): 143. 1000 1001
Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists,” 391.
Callicratidas in Stob. 4.28.18 = TLG pg 107. Translation in Gutherie, Iamblichus, 116.
337 master for his servant. In the body, likewise, which to all animals is the first and dearest thing, it is the health and wholeness of each part.1002 The Pythagoreans and neo-Pythagoreans do not always teach exactly the same thing about marriage, but they are unified in the worth of marriage and its preservation. The family is very important to the preservation of Pythagorean teachings because they were originally kept in the family, passed from father to son or even mother to daughter. Iamblichus writes that Pythagoras persuaded the inhabitants of Croton to give up adultery and prostitution, and works that are attributed to Pythagorean women encourage faithfulness in marriage. Neo-Pythagoreans may have been rare in Corinth in the first century, but their morality parallels other schools that were prevalent that taught selfcontrol and applied it to the marriage relationship. Epicureans, of course, were the exception to this rule.
Epicureans and Marriage Epicurus (341-270 BCE) did not encourage marriage because it threatened his idea of au)ta/rkeia (self-suffficiency).1003 Casual sex, however, was permissible and encouraged because it was a natural pleasure – without the marital commitment that put
1002 1003
Stob. 3.9.51. Translation in Gutherie, Complete Pythagoras, 205.
Martha C. Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 152. For this section of the paper, Hans-Josef Klauck’s work has been particularly helpful in locating sources and relating ancient philosophical thought to the New Testament, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions, trans. Brian McNeil (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 331-416.
338 au)ta/rkeia in jeopardy. 1004 This teaching can explain popularity of courtezans in the history of Epicureanism. The ideal Epicurean wise-person should not marry but can engage in as many sexual encounters as he or she wants because it is an act according to nature, as long as he remains unconnected to anyone or anything.1005 This may sound Cynic on the outset, but while Epicureans did not participate intimately in the livelihood of the city by establishing a household or serving the city, they were free to exploit existing systems for personal enjoyment.1006 Expressing some form of distate towards marriage was quite popular in philosophy. Stobaeus collects 38 sayings from 35 different ancient thinkers who opposed marriage including notables such as Menander, Euripides, Soctrates, Plato, and Solon. 1007 Pseudo-Diogenes takes up this cause in an epistle addressed to Zeno, teaching that marriage should be avoided as a human weakness.1008 After Epicurus, not many Epicureans give an opinion about marriage. Philodemus of Gadara (c. 110-35 BCE) refers to the Epicurean way while he discusses
1004
On Epicurean self-sufficiency, see Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 130-1; VS 36, 44, 77. On necessity, see Diog. Laer. 10.148-9. Cf., Andrew Mitchell, “Friendship Amongst the Self-Sufficient: Epicurus,” Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 5 (2001). Available at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol2/iss2/5 (Accessed Feb 5, 2012); Eric Brown, “Epicurus on the Value of Friendship (“Sententia Vaticana” 23),” C Phil 97, no. 1 (2002): 68-80; P. A. van der Waerdt, “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man,” CQ n.s. 37, no. 2 (1987): 402-422. 1005
Francis Gerald Downing, Cynics, Paul, and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origin (London: Routledge, 1988), 109. 1006
Elizabeth Asmis, “Epicurean Economics,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, 167. 1007
Stob. Concerning Marriage = 4.22 Hense. Translation available in Wibush, Ascetic Behavior, 171-2. 1008
Ep. 47 in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles.
339 other approaches to household management.1009 Lucretius (c. 99-55 BCE) continues the Epicurean tradition that the wise-person should not marry, but under certain circumstances he can take a wife and genuine friendship can result from the union. 1010 Diogenes of Oenoanda (fl. 2nd CE) briefly mentions marriage but gives no opinion on it in what remains as a fragment.1011 Epictetus (c. 55-135 CE) writes that the Epicurean wise-person will not marry (3.7.19), raise children, or participate in politics (1.23). Similarly, Paul’s ideal follower of Christ, following his example, will not marry (1 Cor. 7:8). However, just as Paul provides an exception for marriage for those who cannot practice self-control (1 Cor. 7:9), a highly disputed text in Diogenes Laertius (10.119) says that Epicurus taught that the wise-person could marry under certain (unknown) circumstances, but this exception is only found here and contradicts all other extant teachings of Epicurus on the subject.1012
1009
Philodemus, On Household Management col. 2-3, 9. For Lucretius’ view on marriage, see Nussbaum, Therapy of Desire, 185-91. 1010
Lucretius 4.1283. Aya Betensky, “Lucretius and Love,” CW 73, no. 5 (1980): 291-299; Jane McIntosh Snyder, “Lucretius and the Status of Women,” Classical Bulletin 53 (1976): 17-20; B. Arkins, “Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love, and Marriage,” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 18, no. 2 (1984): 141-143. 1011 1012
Diogenes of Oneoanda, frag. 25.
Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1928); C. W. Chilton, “Did Epicurus Approve of Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119,” Phronesis 5 (1960), 71-4; Jeffrey Fish and Kirk R. Sanders, Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011), 93.
340 Cynics and Marriage With the notable exception of Crates and Hipparchia, there is no record of marriage in the history of the Cynics. 1013 Marriage goes against the grain of the extreme individualism of Cynicism: the complete freedom from all constraints. Epictetus, for example, writes that the Cynic “ought to be free from distraction, wholly devoted to the service of God, free to be among the people, not tied down by the private duties of men, nor involved in relationships which he cannot violate.”1014 The Cynics and Stoics engaged in ongoing debate about marriage.1015
The Stoics and Marriage The Stoics supported traditional marriage with the exception of Zeno (c. 334-262 BCE), who taught that there should be a community of wives for the ideal Stoic community (Diog. Laert. 7.131, following Pl. Rep. 423e, 457a-b, 462).1016 Cicero took his own advice and married to his advantage: he was married twice, and relished his
1013
Luis E. Navia, Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996),135; Luis E. Navia, Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World (Amherst: Humanity Books, 2005); William D. Desmond, Cynics (Berkeley: University of Calfornia Press, 2008), 93; Fitzgerald, Passions and Moral, 60. 1014
Epict. Disc. 3.22.69.
1015
Deming, Paul on Marriage, 48.
1016
Epictetus explains that this is another form of marriage, “kai a1llo ti ei]doj ga&mou ei0sfe/rwn,” frag. 15. Elizabeth Asmis believes that this is an indication that the community of wives also participated in philosophical discourse and education, “The Stoics on Women,” in Ancient Philosophy and Feminism, ed. J. Ward (New York: Routledge, 1996), 68–94.
341 interactions with daughter Tullia and his second wife Terentia.1017 Although it may be a fanciful interpretation of the historical data, it is possible Seneca (c. 4 BCE-65 CE) not only valued marriage, but engaged in philosophical discussion regularly with the sisters of Caligula: Agrippina the Younger,1018 Julia Drusilla, and Julia the Elder.1019 Hierocles and Musonius Rufus1020 supported marriage, but with the careful qualification that women are only superficially equal to men on a theoretical level, but the traditional household duties are actively reinforced.1021
Plutarch, the “Middle Platonist” Represented by Plutarch, the so-called “middle Platonists” believed that the philosopher was to be fully integrated into society, taking a wife, establishing a household, and serving the city in public offices. Plutarch is the first century representative of Middle Platonism, and the primary resources from his writings on this topic are his Advice to Bride and Groom and On Consolation to his Wife. In the Advice to the Bride and Groom, Plutarch expresses his belief that it was wrong for husbands to 1017
Nancy Myers, “Cicero’s (S)Trumpet,” 337-352; Susan Treggiari, Terentia, Tullia and Publilia: The Women of Cicero’s Family (London: Routledge, 2007). 1018
It was Agrippina who secured Seneca’s return from exile so that he could teach Nero, Judith Ginsburg, Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the early Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 20. 1019
G.W. Clarke, ‘Seneca the Younger under Caligula,’ Latomus 24, no. 1 (1965):
62-9. 1020
Ward, “Musionius Rufus and Paul on Marriage;” Engle, “Women’s Role in Home and State: Stoic Theory Reconsidered,” HSCP 101 (2003): 267-88. 1021
Kathy L. Gaca, The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Politial Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 83.
342 irritate their wives with the slight pleasure of adultery.1022 Plutarch writes of his wife: “Every philosopher who has been in our company has been amazed at the simplicity of your person and the unpretensiousness of your life,” “eu)telei/a men ga_r th ~ peri to_ sw~ma kai a)qruyi/a th ~ peri di/aitan ou)dei/j e0sti tw~n filoso&fwn.”1023 The ideal wife, according to Plutarch, is philosophically educated: Su_ d’ w} Eu)rudi/kh ma&lista peirw~ toi=j tw~n sofw~n kai a)gaqw~n a)pofqe/gmasin o(milei=n kai dia sto&matoj a)ei ta_j fwna_j e1xein e0kei/naj w{n kai parqe/noj ou}sa par’ h(mi=n a)nela&mbanej, o3pwj eu)frai/nh j men to_n a1ndra, qauma&zh d’ u(po_ tw~n a1llwn gunaikw~n, ou3tw kosmoume/nh perittw~j kai semnw~j a)po_ mhdeno&j. tou_j men ga_r th~sde th~j plousi/aj margari/taj kai ta_ th~sde th~j ce/nhj shrika_ labei=n ou)k e1stin ou)de periqe/sqai mh_ pollou~ priame/nhn, ta_ de Qeanou~j ko&smia kai Kleobouli/nhj kai Gor g ou~j th~j Lewni/dou gunaiko_j kai Timoklei/aj th~j a)delfh~j kai Klaudi/aj th~j palaia~j kai Kornhli/aj th~j Skipi/wnoj kai o3sai e0ge/nonto qaumastai kai peribo&htoi, tau~ta d’ e1cesti perikeime/nhn proi=ka kai kosmoume/nhn au)toi=j e0ndo&cwj a3ma biou~n kai makari/wj. Qeage/nouj a)delfh~j kai Klaudi/aj th~j palaia~j kai Kornhli/aj th~j Skipi/wnoj kai o3sai e0ge/nonto qaumastai kai peribo&htoi, tau~ta d’ e1cesti perikeime/nhn proi=ka kai kosmoume/nhn au)toi=j e0ndo&cwj a3ma biou~n kai makari/wj. And as for you, Eurydice, I beg that you will try to be conversant with the sayings of the wise and good, and always have at your tongue’s end those sentiments which you used to cull in your girlhood’s days when you were with us, so that you may give joy to your husband, and may be admired by other women, adorned, as you will be, without price, with rare and precious jewels. For you cannot acquire and put upon you this rich woman’s pearls or that foreign woman’s silks without buying them at a high price, but the ornaments of Theano, Cleobulina, Gorgo the wife of Leonidas, Timocleia, the sister of Theagenes, Claudia of old, Cornelia, daughter of Scipio, and of all other women who have been admired and renowned,
1022
Lisette Goessler, “Advice to the Brice and Groom: Plutarch Gives a Detailed Account of his Views on Marriage,” in Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to his Wife: English Translations, Commentaries, Interpretative Essays, and Bibliography, trans. Hazel Harvey, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 107. 1023
Plut. Mor. 609c. Translation by Donald Russell in Plutarch’s Advice, 59-63.
343 you may wear about you without price, and, adorning yourself with these, you may live a life of distinction and happiness.1024 Plutarch gives us important information concerning how a woman could gain access to philosophical education. Eurydice learned philosophical maxims when she was a child in Plutarch’s house, which included lines from poetesses, stories of female heros, and sayings of women philosophers. As a wife, she is to remember these lessons and is encouraged to learn more. Pseudo-Plutarch’s essay on love (Mor. 748e-771e) is also relevant here, because the author, pretending to be his son, presents Plutarch’s view as the writer understands it. The dialog centers on the question of the marriage of a young man, Bacchon, and a wealthy widow that was a bit older. The dialogue embodies Plutarch’s views concerning marriage and it is modeled after Plato’s Symposium, so older traditions are represented in the debate.1025 The dialog reveals that Plutarch thought that the foundation of marriage was love between a man a woman.1026 For these reasons, pseudo-Plutarch will receive more discussion than some of the other ancient works. Pseudo-Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love contains many conflicting views about love: its object (whether one can love men or women physically or only inner beauty), when
1024
Plut. Mor. 145e-f (Babbitt, LCL).
1025
John M. Rist, “Plutarch’s ‘Amatorius’: A Commentary on Plato’s Theories of Love?,” CQ, n.s. 51, no. 2 (2001): 557-575; Frieda Klotz and Katerina Olkonomopoulou, Philosopher’s Banquet: Plutarch’s Table Talk in the Intellectual Culture of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1-33; Frederick E. Brenk, “Plutarch’s Erotikos: The Drag Down Pulled Up,” Relighting the Souls: Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, edited by Frederick E. Brenk (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998), 13-27. 1026
97.
John Ferguson, Moral Values in the Ancient World (London, Methuen: 1958),
344 and who one should marry, and how women are to act in relationship to others. While these issues are debated, Ismenodora, a wealthy widow in love with a young man, acts according to her will to achieve her own purposes. She asserts her love for the young man, which causes heated debate among the older male lovers1027 and other men who are involved in his life. While they discuss whether he should marry her or not, Ismendora kidnaps and marries Bacchon in her home. While this kidnapping and forced marriage is intended as playful and the men are willing participants, there is definitely an undercurrent of Ismendora’s power over Bacchon and the other men of the group. Perhaps the activities of Ismendora in Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love can serve as a model of how wealthy women in the Pauline churches could have moved and acted according to their will while the idealistic views of the activity and role of women in the church was subject to debate. At least by analogy, it shows us the activity of a wealthy woman in the lives of men outside of the royal circle. Ismendora’s character is considered excellent by everyone present, and she fell in love with Bacchon when she was trying to introduce him to one of her friends (749d-e). More importantly, she is the aggressor in the relationship, seeking him as her husband. Bacchon’s friends of the same age make a joke of the idea of him marrying her because of her superiority: her age, wealth, power, authority, and previous marriage. Because of these concerns, Bacchon’s elder friends and family enter into serious debate as to the dynamics of such a marriage. Many people had an opinion about the marriage, but the decision was left up to Anthemion (an elder cousin of Bacchon) and Pisias (the most 1027
For the dynamics of friendship and pederasty in the ancient world, see Marc D. Schachter, Voluntary Servitude and the Erotics of Friendship from Classical Antiquity to Early Modern France (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 23-38.
345 sober of Bacchon’s lovers = o( de Peisi/aj au)sthro&tatoj tw~n e0rastw~n). Plutarch is nominated as a moderator of this debate, and offers his own views at the close, which is comparable in length to everything that precedes it. The argument for pederasty/homoerotica as the highest form of love comes principally from Pisias, a man in a pederastic relationship with Bacchon. 1028 His argument is not entirely rejected by the others, but he does take more than a little bit of flack for his obvious bias (from Anthemion 749f; from Daphnaeus 750b). Protogenes, however, will agree with him. Protogenes asserts that love has nothing to do with women because a man is only acting according to nature (the desire to produce children, and possibly the force of sexual attraction) when he interacts sexually with women. Protogenes insists that the most noble form of love is the love of boys, which goes against these natural urges and therefore cultivates true friendship and virtue (750d-e). Protogenes argues that the love of freeborn boys is the only genuine love (ei[j 1Erwj [o(] gnh&sioj o( paidiko&j e0stin in 751a is qualified in 751b to exclude slave boys). At this point, Daphnaeus interrupts Protogenes and declares (after a jest insinuating that Protogenes himself is bewitched by infatuation) that women’s yielding to men sexually is called “favor” by the poets, but the unnatural yielding of boys to men or adults to men is violent if involuntary or effeminate if it is voluntary. Daphnaeus does not wholly do away with pederasty as a normative mode of affection, but wants to force Protogenes to admit that if unnatural activity is hailed as such, natural expressions must be accepted as
1028
Michael Robert Klabunde, Boys or Women?: The Rhetoric of Sexual Preference in Achilles Tatius, Plutarch, and pseudo-Lucian (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2001).
346 well, particularly because natural intercourse wins immortality for the human race (from 751f-752e). Pisias then expresses a familiar standard: “e0pei tai=j ge sw&frosin ou1t’ e0ra~n ou1t ’ e0ra~sqai dh&pou prosh~ko&n e0stin,” “Decent women cannot, of course, without impropriety either receive or bestow a passionate love” (752c). To this Plutarch interjects with a very interesting rebuttal, placing marriage within the context of friendship: kai nh_ Di/a Dafnai/w sundi/kouj h(ma~j prosti/qhsin ou) metria&zwn o( Peisi/aj, a)lla_ toi=j ga&moij a)ne/raston e0pa&gwn kai a1moiron e0nqe/ou fili/aj koinwni/an, h4n th~j e0rwtikh~j peiqou~j kai xa&ritoj a)polipou&shj mononou_ zugoi=j kai (D.) xalinoi=j u(p’ ai0sxu&nhj kai fo&bou ma&la mo&lij sunexome/nhn o(rw~men. ‘I swear that it is Pisias’ lack of moderation that makes me join forces with Daphnaeus. So marriage is to be a loveless union, devoid of its god-given friendship!’ Yet we observe that a loveless alliance, once it is deserted by courtship and ‘favor,’ can scarcely be held together by such yokes as shame and fear.1029 Because friendship must be between equals - and several ancient writers of this time want to apply the principals of friendship to many unequal relationships like patronage, kingship, kinship, and marriage - Plutarch must find a way to make husband and wife “equal.” Plutarch defends marriage, addressing the two ways that women can often be superior to men in general: in beauty and wealth, and gives examples of how both have destroyed men. Pisias asserts again that women have no part at all in love, and because of this wealthy and beautiful women are particularly dangerous. He explicitly attacks Ismenodora, saying that she is only seeking to dominate a boy younger and less wealthy than herself (752e-f). Pisias argues that women only feel passion and not true love, being lead only by the baser part of the soul. He restates the position asserted by Protogenes 1029
Plut. Mor. 752c (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
347 above: “e0ra~n de fa&skousan gunai=ka fugei=n tij a2n e1xoi kai bdeluxqei/h, mh&ti ge la&boi ga&mou poihsa&menoj a)rxh_n th_n toiau&thn a)krasi/an,” “For if a woman makes a declaration of love, a man can only take to his heels in utter disgust, let alone accepting and founding a marriage on such intemperance.”1030 In this case, the age difference also has to be addressed. First, Plutarch submits that not all married men are unhappy with the companionship of women and do not seek to be freed from it (753c). Some women are worthless to men and destroy them with their wealth and beauty, but if a man brings his wife down to his level by degrading her wealth and beauty, he will also demean himself. Plutarch therefore says: o( de suste/llwn th_n gunai=ka kai suna&gwn ei0j mikro&n, w3sper daktu&lion i0sxno_j w2n mh_ perirruh ~ dediw&j, o3moio&j e0sti toi=j a)pokei/rousi ta_j i3ppouj ei]ta pro_j potamo_n h2 li/mnhn a1gousi: kaqorw~san ga_r e9ka&sthn th_n ei0ko&na th~j o1yewj a)kallh~ kai a1morfon a)fie/nai ta_ frua&gmata le/getai kai prosde/xesqai ta_j tw~n o1nwn e0piba&seij. “The man who cramps and diminishes his wife (as a thin man does his ring for fear that it may fall off) is like those who shear their mares and then lead them to a river or a pool: when the poor beast sees how ugly she looks in the reflection, ugly and unsightly, they say that she abandons her haughty airs and allows asses to mount her.”1031 The equality which is requisite to friendship occurs not by the man degrading the wealth and beauty of his wife, but by the enhancement of the husband’s character. His character is enhanced not by shunning his wife, or by making her poor or ugly, but by bearing all of her advantages with dignity. It is the husband’s own will not to serve his more powerful wife that makes him strong.
1030
Plut. Mor. 753b (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
1031
Plut. Mor. 754a (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
348 a)ndri de plousi/aj h2 kalh~j ou) prosh&kei, mhde th_n gunai=ka poiei=n a1morfon h2 penixra&n, a)ll’ e9auto_n e0gkratei/a kai fronh&sei kai tw ~ mhqen e0kpeplh~xqai tw~n peri e0kei/nhn i1son pare/xein kai a)dou&lwton, w3sper e0pi zugou~ r(oph_n tw ~ h1qei prostiqe/nta kai ba&roj, u(f’ ou{ kratei=tai kai a1getai dikai/wj a3ma kai sumfero&ntwj. The husband, however, of a rich or beautiful woman must not make her unsightly or poor; rather by his own self-possession and prudence, as well as by the refusal to be over-awed by any of her advantages, he must hold to his own without servility.1032 Perhaps even more remarkable, in light of other passages regarding the education of women in Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius, is that the elder wife educates the younger husband. Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch together bear witness to the education of elite women by their husbands. Yet Plutarch notes that a more educated woman should teach her husband: ei0 d’ a1rxei bre/fouj men h( ti/tqh kai paido_j o( dida&skaloj e0fh&bou de gumnasi/arxoj e0rasth_j de meiraki/ou genome/nou d’ e0n h(liki/a no&moj kai strathgo_j ou)deij d’ a1narktoj ou)d’ au)totelh&j, ti/ deino_n ei0 gunh_ nou~n e1xousa presbute/ra kuber nh&sei ne/ou bi/on a)ndro&j, w)fe/limoj men ou}sa tw ~ fronei=n ma~llon h(dei=a de tw ~ filei=n kai proshnh&j The nurse rules the infant, the teacher the boy, the gymnasiarch the youth, his admirer the young man who, when he comes of age, is ruled by law and his commanding general. No one is his own master, no one is unrestricted. Since this is so, what is there dreadful about a sensible older woman piloting the life of a young man? She will be useful because of her superior intelligence; she will be sweet because she loves him. 1033 At this point, Ismendora asserts her power by summoning all the young men and young ladies loyal to her to help her to kidnap Bacchus. Apparently, Bacchus was in the habit of walking by her house at a certain time of day, and some other young men brought him in to the house and the party dressed him in wedding clothes and they 1032
Plut. Mor. 754b (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
1033
Plut. Mor. 754d (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
349 proceeded with the ceremony. Upon hearing this news, Pisias loses his mind and leaves the debate to call upon the gymnasiarchs to settle the matter, and Protogenes follows to calm him down (755c). It appears to me that the rest of the persons participating in the discussion were amused with Ismendora and end up associating her with other great male and female lovers. With the most passionate defenders of pederasty now out of the debate, Pemptides appeals to the group again to discuss the topic at hand, appealing to the analogy of two people finding an asp and wanting to keep it for good luck: whether love can be found with men or women or both (755e-f). Plutarch was just about to open his mouth to answer when Ismendora again asserts her power: she summons Anthemion, the one other moderator from the debate, to come to her house to help her settle the uproar. Anthemion therefore leaves the group of men at the request of a woman (756a), which is very significant: Ismendora forces her will on Bacchon – the younger, inexperienced man – and then on Athemion, his elder, who may well be her superior in age and wealth. Plutarch begins his answer with a long sermon (756b-757c) declaring the divinity of Eros and Ares. Plutarch asserts that Eros guides the older male lovers of young boys when friendship is their goal - and therefore does not undermine pederasty in the slightest (758b-c; again lauded quite a bit in 760e-761e). In this case, one should guard against following one’s lust, because pederasty is criticized when the object of the elder man’s affection is not beauty of soul and the enjoyment of the body. It is in this balance that Plutarch can argue both for pederasty, adult male homoeroticism, and then the expression of love with women/wives (759f-760b). Women in general have done courageous deeds in the name of love, he declares (761e).
350 Pederasty again seems to be the type of love praised by in 762b-f. It makes the slow-witted man clever, every man generous, and happy to give (examples are given of pederastic men who change while in love with boys). Zeuxippus continued this point by offering his own example, and then appealed to Sappho who gives an example of the same thing happening to women when they see their beloved (763a). In the midst of another long speech by Plutarch, he mentions Plato’s doctrine of love (764a; as mentioned in the Symposium). In Plato’s doctrine of love, the object of affection is the soul. For Plutarch, the object of affection is also the beauty of the soul, but there is appreciation for physical beauty. As a god, Eros graciously leads the person to love the soul while the lover longs to be united sexually with the beloved, be they male or female (765a-b). This concept is elucidated by the following quote: eu)fuou~j d’ e0rastou~ kai sw&fronoj a1lloj tro&poj: e0kei= ga_r a)nakla~tai pro_j to_ qei=on kai nohto_n kalo&n: o(ratou~ de sw&matoj e0ntuxw_n ka&llei kai xrw&menoj oi[on o)rga&nw tini th~j mnh&mhj a)spa&zetai kai a)gapa ~, kai sunw_n kai geghqw_j e1ti ma~llon e0kfle/getai th_n dia&noian. But the noble and self-controlled lover [of either men or women] has a different bent. His regard is refracted to the other world, to Beauty divine and intelligible. When he encounters beauty in a visible body, he treats it as an instrument to memory. He welcomes and delights in it, yet the pleasure of its company only serves the more to inflame his spirit.1034 Pseudo-Plutarch has received much attention in this section because of its value for understanding the historical, cultural mileu, and the philosophical landscape. The dialog presents us with a limited variety of first century views concerning pederasty, love, and marriage. Some considered love between males as the ideal because only males were equipped to be free from their natural impulses and cultivate virtue. Others
1034
Plut. Mor. 766a (Minar, Sandbach, and Hemhold, LCL).
351 considered love between men and women as expressed in marriage to be ideal. Isomendora, an older and wealthier woman exerts her will on a younger man as well as an older and wealthier man. Like an emperess, she appears to be perfectly in control of her destiny in this episode. She is a threat to the younger Bacchon because the older men know from experience that wealthier women can control their husbands. In the end, Plutarch gives the final judgment: love between men and women, even between social “unequals” is not only possible, but can be successful and foster virtue. Finally, we can highlight Plutarch’s suggestion that a more educated wife should teach her husband, and the husband therefore should consider her greater education to be an advantage.
Paul and Marriage After discussing the opinions on the various popular philophers on marriage, we move on to Paul. All of these schools had a history of teaching women, and all of them had some kind of presence in Corinth. Therefore, we should expect that some women in the Corinthian community would understand Paul’s teachings in light of what they had learned in their philosophical education. In this section, I will review Paul’s teachings concerning marriage in 1 Corinthians and then examine how two philosophically educated women would read his teachings.
How not to do Marriage: Improper Union with the Step-mother (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and Prostitutes (6:12-16) I addressed this issue in section 4.5.3 because Paul is most likely speaking to a somewhat common problem of a wealthy widow co-habitating with her step-son. Paul completely rejects this situation as an appropriate expression of Christian love or
352 marriage, and it disrupts Christian fellowship so severely that the step-son must be expelled from the community. Nothing is said of the woman – most readers of 1 Corinthians take this silence to mean that she is not a member of the community – if she is considered at all.1035 If so, Paul could be risking the alienation of wealthier members of the Christian community with their higher status friends – something that Paul does not seem interested in at all in 1 Corinthians. 1036 Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor. 10:27 allow for the wealthier members of the community to continue their relationships with their “unbelieving” friends because they can invite and be invited to dinner parties without dietary restrictions.1037 These teachings also allow the wealthier members to host the community in their households without censure from their wealthy friends because of the strange dietary restrictions of the community. 1038 It was the secretive nature of early Christian meetings that later brought criticism from their polemicists, who let their imaginations run wild with assumptions as to what the Christians might be doing behind closed doors.1039 If Paul can convince his followers to be above suspicion, that is one less
1035
Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 96; Barrett, Corinthians, 121; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 158; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 234; Chow, Patronage and Power, 114. 1036
Cf., Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 203.
1037
For discussion, see Horrell, Social Ethos, 108. Hays writes that Paul prefers that the “strong” join him with the “weak” and avoid meat altogether if nessesary, Corinthians, 142-3. However, if no one at the table is offended, it seems that the “strong” can eat meat as they please. Cf., Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 253; Chow, Patronage and Power, 156-7. 1038
Martin, Corinthian Body, 75; cf., Witherington calls it a “qualified endorcement” of both positions, Conflict and Community, 191-2; Lull and Beardslee, Corinthians, 81, 89-92.
353 thing for the patrons of the church to worry about. It would be an incentive for the wealthy members of the community – both insiders and outsiders - to begin or continue supporting the church. However, if the step-mother in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 is a member of the community, she would have more sympathetic relationship to Paul than an outsider, and the expulsion of her step-son from the community may have been to her advantage and perhaps beneficial for the rest of the community. The questions surrounding the death of a wealthy man and the precise division of that wealth and settlements of debt is a time of tremendous vulnerability, and other members of the Christian community perhaps could not resist such a temptation. The expulsion of the step-son in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 combined with forbidding lawsuits in public courts nicely solves these problems. The public shaming of the step-mother may cause more problems that it solves, unless the separation works out to her advantage (discourages lawsuits, publically dissolves a problematic relationship, and secures her claim to her husband’s wealth). Paul addresses the problem of the union of men and women1040 in the Christian community with prostitutes in 1 Cor. 6:12-16. Paul focuses on the unity of the Christian body, utilizing the “one body many parts” metaphor. The metaphor is deceptive in its 1039
Menucius Felix, Oct. 9.5; Tertullian, Apol. 7-8; Origen, Celsus, 6.40. J. Rives, “Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians,” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995): 65-85; L. Roig Lanzillotta, “The Early Christians and Human Sacrifice,” in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 81-102; Robert Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 27-46. 1040
In the Roman world, both men and women exploited prostitutes who were typically slaves (both adults and children). There is no reason to assume that Paul is restricting this teaching to men alone, unless Paul does not think that a female can unite the body of Christ with a prostitute. For references and bibliography, see below section 6.4.1.
354 simplicity: the strength of the body is determined by the unity of the members, which are useless if they stand alone. That is simple enough, but the metaphor is exclusively used in antiquity to explain that the rich and poor are unified in one body, and the poor should continue happily in their servile position.1041 Because the Christians are unified with one another and with Christ, sexual intercourse with a prostitute is much more than simply one person indulging himself or herself by sexually exploiting another person. The unity that the Christian enjoys with Christ and the community is disrupted when this unity is extended by means of a sexually immoral activity to a prostitute. Paul seeks to motivate his audience to preserve this unity by warning them that they are uniting Christ with the prostitute in sexual immorality.
Paul’s Regulations for Marriage: 1 Cor. 7:1-40 In 1 Cor. 7:1-40, Paul gives the community his regulations for marriage. 1042 Apparently, some members of the community were married but thought that it was best not to engage in sexual acts within that marriage. Paul begins his teaching on marriage with a negative motivation: people should marry because of the temptation to sexual immorality (7:2). Paul goes on to give his understanding of conjugal rights: the husband and wife should not deprive one another sexually (7:3). He seems to reject the idea that sexual union is reserved for procreation, and gives both the male and female over to their natural lusts. Then Paul expresses the ideal to be imitated: to be unmarried and in
1041
Martin, Corinthian Body, 95; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 157-64. 1042
For interpretative issues and bibliography, see below in section 6.4.3.
355 complete control over the passions (7:9). However, if a person cannot maintain selfcontrol, then they should marry (7:10). Paul teaches that a man and wife should not divorce one another, and if they do seperate, they should not remarry but reconcile to each other (7:10-11). The prohibition on divorce is unqualified,1043 and supported by the superlative example: even if one has an unbelieving spouse, the believing partner should not initiate divorce and make their partner and their children holy. Remarriage is forbidden for a woman who does leave her husband, the only option that Paul gives is reconciliation. The only divorce that is sanctioned is when an unbelieving spouse asks for one. Paul then gives more justification for remaining unmarried: the present distress (7:26) and the added anxieties of marriage that distract one from serving the Lord (7:32-34). However, marriage and betrothal are not sins in themselves (7:28). Paul concedes that if done properly (ie, with both persons practicing acceptable levels of self-control) marriage and betrothal are good, but remaining unmarried is better (7:38). Paul concludes by giving instruction specifically to women: they should not divorce or remarry as long as their first husband lives, but if he dies, then she can remarry someone in the Christian community.
1043
Deming suggests that Paul is following a Jesus tradition that prohobits divorce and interprets 1 Cor. 7:11 as speaking to separation and not necessarily divorce, Paul on Marriage, 218. However, Paul is not allowing for divorce or qualifying his prohibition on it by recognizing that it will happen in the community (1 Cor. 7:11) but gives instructions for what should be done if divorce or separation should occur (reconciliation and no remarriage).
356 Paul’s Regulations in Worship: 1 Cor. 11:1-17 In 1 Corinthians 11:1-17, Paul uses his concept of marriage to give instructions concerning the use of head-coverings in worship.1044 These instructions comprise the concept of “headship”: the head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (11:2). Paul moves on to the regulation of worship, elaborating on the idea of “headship” with instructions concerning head-coverings. Men are to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered, and women are to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. Men should remain uncovered because men are the image and glory of God, women are the image of men. Paul elaborates further on unity: men and women are made for each other and are interdependent. Paul concludes discussion on the topic of head-coverings by an appeal to nature: if a man wears long hair, it is against nature, and if a woman has long hair, it is perfectly natural so she should wear a head-covering.
Sophia and Fortuna on Marriage We have seen in chapter five that Sophia and Fortuna have approached Paul from different perspectives. Both readers have difficulties, confusion, and points of departure from his arguments, but they also find that they can appreciate him for their own reasons. Paul’s teachings concerning human and wisdom in chapters 1-4 were understandable to both Sophia and Fortuna, who both identify with his teachings concerning divine wisdom. The confusing nature of Paul’s understanding of division within the church and the sharp contrast between divine and human wisdom is troublesome to both women. 1044
For exegetical questions and bibliography, see chapter 4 above.
357 However, Sophia’s sympathetic reading allows her to identify with Paul and approach his rhetoric as directed toward the human wisdom of his opponents and not her own. Paul’s persistence on the issue and especially his claim to attain self-sufficiency without a philosophical method eventually alienate Fortuna. At the same time, however, the less sympathetic Fortuna intends to contine her support to the church and despite the shortcomings of Paul’s arguments. In this chapter, we will explore how Sophia and Fortuna would read Paul’s regulations concerning marriage and worship.
Reading 1 Cor. 5:1-5 and 6:12-16 with Sophia Paul’s teachings concerning marriage address the problem of unity. I have argued that the problem of the step-mother and step-son provides the perfect conditions for serious discord in the community. The step-son is usually seen as the person in control of the wealth,1045 but the larger share in the property may well have passed to his stepmother who can leave him disinherited should he leave the house.1046 Even if the consequence is not quite that severe, the property situation could be a powerful motivation to maintain a continued positive relationship with her. 1047 Not much needs to be said about this issue except for the threat that it can present to the wealthy patroness: if the church acts according to Paul’s command, then he is exerting authority on a very intimate aspect of her household. Paul himself is not ejecting the man from the household, but is calling for the community to remove him from a group that he may care 1045
Keener, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 49; Garland, Corinthians, 162-3.
1046
Cf., Gardner, Women in Roman Law, 163-204.
1047
Cf., Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 81.
358 deeply about. The problem that Sophia may encounter is the threat that Paul may attempt to exert the same kind of authority in an area of her life that only she should determine. Paul’s evident lack of concern for the goodwill of a wealthy woman demonstrates a gross lack of respect for the people who are providing the church with critical support. However, Sophia can support Paul’s expulsion of the step-son on the basis of his promotion of self-control and unity within the community. This episode is not merely one that highlights one woman’s home and an improper sexual relationship, but is a matter that effects the entire community. Paul’s action could have worked to the benefit of the step-mother, removing the temptation for other people in the community to take advantage of her vulnerability in court by attacking her character. In this case, Sophia can approach Paul’s handling of this situation in an entirely appropriate manner: he is teaching self-control and ridding the community of a very real problem. Paul addresses the problem of the unification of the church in a strange manner: sex with prostitutes. The principle sources for prostitution were exposed children, female and male slaves, and female and male freedpersons who sold themselves into slavery. Most prostitutes were forced into prostitution by their masters or families, which complicates the ethical situtation that Paul addresses.1048 From the literary sources, prostitution was rarely practiced by choice. Prostitution was a problem for Roman women and men because by exploiting prostitutes, men could both displease their wives and produce illegitimate heirs that threaten their fortunes. Wealthy Roman women could participate in prostitution as either a buyer or a seller, and that could cause legal problems 1048
Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 21-4; cf., Glancy, Slavery as Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011).
359 for her husband and destitution or death for herself, provided that her husband followed the law himself or his friends or enemies see to it that the law is enforced.1049 The first problem is addressed by the neo-Pythagorean philosophers, who encourage women to bear this hardship with magnamity. The concepts presented in these neo-Pythagorean writers could have been expressed by any Stoic or Middle Platonist. The popular philosophers and other ancient writers also used the metaphor of the body to reinforce social unity. Sophia is glad to hear that Paul prohibits sex with prostitutes because of her experience as a wife and widow and especially because of her philosophical education. For Sophia, it is good that both men and women are taught to practice self-control not only with respect to prostitutes but in every other area of life. 1050
Reading 1 Cor. 5:1-5 and 6:12-16 with Fortuna As with Sophia, there is not much to say about Fortuna’s reading of the incident concerning the inappropriate relationship between the woman and her step-son. The challenge of the situation for Fortuna would doubtless be Paul’s undue influence on one of their peers’ household. Like the step-mother, Fortuna is a wealthy patroness of the
1049
Cf., Thomas A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Roman Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Contra Wire, who suggests that only men solicited male (and female?) prostitutes, so Paul could only be speaking to men, Corinthian Women Prophets, 74. 1050
Both men and women of various status participated as both consumers and prostitutes. For women paying male prostitutes, see John Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100BC-AD 250 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 226; ancient sources in Johnson and Ryan, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Society, 87-109. Contra Wire, who asserts that this text cannot apply to women because they never paid male prostitutes, Corinthian Women Prophets, 74.
360 church. If Paul can impose his will on one of her sisters, showing an unforgivable lack of gratitude and cowardly use of the church to expel the step-son instead of taking a more sublte, private approach to the situation, then someday he could betray her in a similar manner. Fortuna suspects that if Paul can suddenly find fault with her, perhaps she would face a similar embarrassment. Fortuna is pleased that Paul calls for self-control of men and women with respect to prostitutes. However, she finds it useless to attempt to reform the sexual behaviors of people who for all their lives they had seen nothing wrong with Paul’s version of sexual “immorality.” For Fortuna, however, self-control is attained by disciplined commitment to a philosophical method. By its nature, the self-control that Paul requires of the entire community is only available to the disciplined few who have the stamina to follow the rigors of good teachings. Although the prohibition is something of a trite criticism in her opinion, if Paul persuades some people to avoid prostitutes and it does settle some discord in the community, then the prohibition is good for everyone.
Reading Regulations for Marriage in 1 Cor. 7:1-40 with Sophia The entire chapter of 1 Cor. 7 addresses the issue of marriage and divorce.1051 Within this block of text there are many issues and questions. Within 1 Cor. 7:1-16, there
1051
Harry G. Coiner, “Those Divorce and Remarriage Passages,” CTM 39 no. 6 (1968): 367-384; Walter J. Bartling, “Sexuality, Marriage, and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 6:12-7:16,” CTM 39 no. 6 (1968): 355-366; Linda Boston, “A Womanist Reflection on 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35,” Journal of Women and Religion 9-10 (1990-1991): 81-89; Chrys C. Caragounis, “‘Fornication’ and ‘concession:’ Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer (Louvain: Leuven University Press: Peeters, 1996); Reidulf K. Molvaer, “St. Paul’s Views on Sex according to 1 Corinthians 7:9 & 36-38,” ST 58, no. 1 (2004): 45-59; Charles A. Wanamaker, “Connubial Sex and the Avoidance of Porneia: Paul’s Rhetorical Argument in 1
361 are the implications for women prophets,1052 question of the sayings/views of the Corinthians,1053 spiritual marriage,1054 the nature of Paul’s asceticism, 1055 the use of archaeological evidence,1056 the issue of self-control, 1057 the nature of Paul’s usage of a
Corinthians 7:1-5,” Scriptura 90 (2005): 839-849; Chrys C. Caragounis, “What did Paul Mean? The Debate on 1 Cor. 7:1-7,” ETS 82 no 1 (2006), 189-199; Craig S. Keener, “Interethnic Marriages in the New Testament (Matt 1:3-6; Acts 7:29; 16:1-3; cf. 1 Cor 7:14),” CTR n.s. 6, no. 2 (2009): 25-43; Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, “Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16,” HTR 103, no. 1 (2010) 1-25. David Horrell, “The Development of Theological Ideology in Pauline Christianity: A Structuration Theory Perspective,” in Modelling Early Christianity, 22436. 1052
Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 72-9.
1053
Bruce W. Winter, “1 Corinthians 7:6-7: A Caveat and a Framework for ‘the Sayings’ in 7:8-24,” TynB 48 no., 1 (1997): 57-65. 1054
William F. Beck, “1 Corinthians 7:36-38,” CTM 25 no., 5 (1954): 370-372; John J. O’Rourke, “Hypotheses regarding 1 Corinthians 7:36-38,” CBQ 20 no., 3 (1958): 292-298; Roland H. A. Seboldt, “Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38,” CTM 30, no. 2 (1959): 103-119; Roland H. A. Seboldt, “Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38,” CTM 30, no. 3 (1959): 176-189; Greg Peters, “Spiritual Marriage in Early Christianity: 1 Cor 7:25-38 in Modern Exegesis and the Earliest Church,” TrinJ n.s. 23, no. 2 (2002): 211-224. 1055
Karle Gustav Dolfe, “1 Cor 7,25 Reconsidered (Paul a Supposed Adviser)” ZNW 83 no., 1-2 (1992), 115-118; Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Celibate Pneumatics and Social Power : On the Motivations for Sexual Asceticism in Corinth,” USQR 48 no., 3-4 (1994): 105-126; David G. Hunter, “The Reception and Interpretation of Paul in Late Antiquity: 1 Corinthians 7 and the Ascetic Debates,” in Reception and interpretation of the Bible in late antiquity: Proceedings of the Montreal Colloquium in Honor of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006, ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucian Turcescu (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 163-191; Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7),” in Corinthian Correspondence, 519-541. 1056
Richard E. Oster, “Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7,1-5, 8,10, 11,2-16, 12,14-26),” ZNW 83 no., 1-2 (1992): 52-73.
362 teaching of Jesus,1058 Jewish background, 1059 Paul’s teachings of slavery and social status (1 Cor. 7:17-24),1060 Paul’s rhetoric, 1061 and questions related to the betrothed.1062
1057
Michael L. Barré, “To Marry or to Burn: pyrousthai in I Cor 7:9,” CBQ 36 no., 2 (1974): 193-202; Frans. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” in Apôtre Paul: Personnalite, Style et Conception du Ministere, ed. A. Vanhoy. BETL 73 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986), 265-321; Alexander, “‘Better to Marry,” 235-256. 1058
David Wenham, “Paul’s use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples,” Source: Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 7-37; Eric K C. Wong, “The Deradicalization of Jesus’ Ethical Sayings in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 48, no. 2 (2002): 181-194; Frans. Neirynck, “The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians,” Corinthian Correspondence, 141-176. 1059
J. Massyngberde Ford, “‘Hast Thou Tithed Thy Meal?’ and ‘Is Thy Child Kosher?’ (1 Cor 10:27ff and 1 Cor 7:14),” JTS n.s.17, no. 1 (1966): 71-79; Piet Farla, “‘The Two Shall Become one Flesh’: Gen 1.27 and 2.24 in the New Testament Marriage Texts,” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by S. Draisma (Kampen, Netherlands: J.H. Kok, 1989), 67-82; Peter J. Tomson, “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of his Law Teaching in 1Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law: Tübingen Studies and Earliest Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 251-270; Yonder Moynihan Gillihan, “Jewish Laws on Illicit Marriage, the Defilement of Offspring, and the Holiness of the Temple: a new Halakic Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14,” JBL 121, no. 4 (2002): 711-744. 1060
R. L. Roberts, “The meaning of chorizo and douloo in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17,” ResQ 8 no., 3 (1965): 179-184; Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21, SBLDS 11 (Scholars’ Press: University of Montana, 1973); Gregory W. Dawes, “‘But if you can Gain your Freedom,’ (1 Corinthians 7:17-24),” CBQ 52, no. 4 (1990): 681-697; J. Albert Harrill, “Paul and Slavery: The Problem of 1 Corinthians 7:21,” BR 39 (1994): 5-28; Will Deming, “A Diatribe Pattern in 1 Cor 7:21-22: A New Perspective on Paul’s Directions to Slaves,” NovT 37 no., 2 (1995): 130-137; Brad Ronnell Braxton, “The Role of Ethnicity in the Social Location of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24,” in Yet with a Steady Beat: The AfricanAmerican Struggle for Recognition in the Episcopal Church, ed. Harold T. Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 19-32; John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-historical and Exegetical Examination (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); John Byron, “Slaves and Freed Persons: Self-made Success and Social Climbing in the Corinthian Congregation,” Jian Dao, no. 29 (2008): 91-107. 1061
Rollin A. Ramsaran, “More Than an Opinion: Paul’s Rhetorical Maxim in First Corinthians 7:25-26,” CBQ 57, no. 3 (1995): 531-541.
363 Somewhere beneath all of these arguments, interpretations, and readings, are our philosophically educated women, who heard 1 Corinthians being read with as much noise as a modern reader who is aware of all these arguments. Sophia and Fortuna read 1 Corinthians from their multi-valent backgrounds (wealth, status, power, education, sense of style and tradition, etc.), and I will continue to focus on their readings from their perspective as wealthy philosophically educated women. Paul opens his discussion with a very low view of marriage: it is permissible only because people are weak and cannot control their passions. While he expresses this negative sentiment three times (1 Cor. 7:2, 9, 36), Paul qualified it by saying that marriage and betrothal are not sins. Therefore, the ideal is the person who has a selfcontrol that can successfully overcome passion. For everyone else who cannot attain this ideal, marriage is a concession. The regulations concerning marriage are that it is a lifetime commitment for a woman, divorce is forbidden for both men and women who are members of the community, but believers should grant unbelievers a divorce if the unbeliever requests it on account of religion. If a couple within the community does divorce, they are encouraged to reconcile but forbidden to marry anyone else. These teachings do not apply directly to Sophia because she is a widow. She is unmarried and her husband is dead, so she meets the only explicit criteria for remarriage (perhaps a loophole in Paul’s thinking is the question concerning whether or not people who agreed to divorce their partners because they did not want to be married to a Christian could remarry). Of slight interest to Sophia are the parallels in Paul’s thinking 1062
William F. Beck, “1 Corinthians 7:36-38,” CTM 25, no. 5 (1954): 370-372; Richard Kugleman, “1 Cor. 7:36-38,” CBQ 10, no. 1 (1948): 63-71.
364 to other philosophers who prohibit or make marriage a concession for someone who lacks self-control. For Sophia, it is self-control that captures her imagination, not Paul’s concept of marriage itself. It is of no consequence to Sophia whether or not the members of the community marry (unless the union somehow effects her), but she can celebrate being a part of community that strives together for the virtue of mastering the self.
Reading Regulations for Marriage in 1 Cor. 7:1-40 with Fortuna Fortuna receives Paul’s regulations concerning marriage with complete disinterest. Fortuna is slightly amused that Paul offers marriage as a concession to selfcontrol: instead of developing an environment that encourages self-control, Paul allows for a context where people can live a less than ideal life (1 Cor. 7:7, 32-4). At least Paul is consistent and teaches that both the husband and wife should willingly participate in sexual relations except for an agreed-upon time of prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). That is, marriage is for those who are not self-controlled, therefore one should not allow their partner to “burn” with passion (7:9). If Paul tells people to marry who lack control of their passions, it would completely defeat the purpose if he did not allow for these passions to be somehow expressed within marriage, his remedy to the problem. This approach to sex and restraint within marriage seems to be an attempt to appease those who said that it was good for a man not to “touch” a woman (a euphemism for sex1063), but instead of a lifestyle, the mutual choice to refrain from sex should be brief (7:5).
1063
Roy Ciampa, “Revisiting the Euphemisim in 1 Corinthians 7.1,” JSNT 31, no. 3 (2009): 325-338.
365 The only possible benefit for Fortuna would be the possibility of the approval of her patronage of the Pauline community from her friends, because of the stability that the prohibition of divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10-17 could bring to the community. However, this benefit is slight because her friends – should they discover the prohibition – would be more alarmed and amused that than anything else. While we know of several couples from monuments and other sources in the Roman world who were committed to each other for life, no other Greek or Roman teacher had ever prohibited divorce (although some leaders like Augustus in his lex Iulia discouraged it).1064 If the prohibition of divorce somehow gained popularity – or perhaps even in Fortuna’s circle of Christian friends - it would threaten the ambitions of entire families.1065 As families sought to better their status, secure their estate, and gain wealth and power, divorce and remarriage were simply used as means to that end. Sexual gratification and fulfillment for both elite men and women were found elsewhere: in the exploitation of children, slaves, prostitutes, clients, freed persons, and other unmarried and married people outside of the marriage.1066 1064
There were a few other teachings that prohibited divorce (not to mention the Jesus tradition, but Paul makes no indication that he has shared this with the Corinthians before), see David Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 156. 1065
Kate Cooper, The Fall of the Roman Household (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), xii. 1066
For clients and freedpersons, see Ellen Oliensis, “The Erotics of amicitia,” in Roman Sexualities, ed. Marilynn Skinner and Judith P. Hallett (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 168; James L. Butrica, “Some Myths and Anomalies in the Study,” in Same-sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. Beert C. Verstraete and Vernon Provencal (Binghampton: Harrington Park Press 2005), 217-8; Christian Laes, Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 222-77.
366 Reading Regulations for Worship in 1 Cor. 11:1-17 with Sophia Like all other sections of 1 Corinthians, there are many exegetical and theological problems in 1 Cor. 11:1-7. I have already addressed the scholarly debates on 1 Cor. 11:216 above in 4.6.8 concerning the question of Pauline authenticity, the role of the veil in worship, and the nature of the head-covering (hairstyle or veil?), and the significance of kefalh/ (source or authority?). I am approaching this text from the perspective that it is Pauline, women were active in community worship, Paul wanted the women to wear veils and the men not to wear veils in worship, and Paul used an unusual argument from nature to support his teaching. As a philosophically educated woman, Sophia is familiar with the various attempts by the philosophers (both male and female) to regulate her dress and every other part of her life. Since she had been a member of the community, no regulation concerning head-coverings had been given to her. Before reading this epistle, she could pray, prophesy, or otherwise participate in worship without such restraint, exercising the freedom that defines the theology of the cross. Even after the receipt of this epistle, her own sense of fashion and common practice for women of her status would have much more influence on her choice than Paul’s unconvincing theological rationale for the use of head-coverings.1067 The dynamics of Sophia’s choice on this matter are the same 1067
The same can be said of men of her status, who were equally cognizant of style and common practice – and would equally be dismissive of Paul’s theological virtues concerning their clothing. Portraits of women with and without headcoverings are found in the same context, suggesting that it is a matter of choice rather than social pressure that dictates dress, Luise Schottroff, Let the Oppressed Go Free: Femenist Perspectives on the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 109; Kelly Olson, “Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity,” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure (Madison: University of Wisconson Press, 2006), 193.
367 before she hears Paul and after she hears Paul. This is a matter of freedom for women (and men) of her status: she wears what she desires as is appropriate to display wealth and power. Like anyone else of her status, if she allows someone of inferior status to dictate her dress, she would be heroically humbling herself, especially when they are using a weak theology that she had likely never heard before. As with many other points like eating together and refraining from idol meat, the tangible benefit for uniform dress would be at least the outer expression of economic unity. It is entirely possible that women demonstrated their wealth and style with their hair and head-coverings. 1068 If by some miracle, all of the women in the community were both convinced by Paul to wear a head-covering to every worship meeting and they were able to do so, there is the slight possibility that everyone would be enriched by the sense of unity that Paul desires. It is also interesting to note here that some women were prohibited by law from wearing the veil: anyone who had ever been a prostitute and anyone who had ever committed adultery.1069 In that case, Paul’s requirement for all women to wear a veil can be read as redemption: all women, no matter what their condition are to enjoy a certain equality and unity with everyone else. However, it is impossible to gloss over the profound economic/power/status differences in the community that will forever be apparent to everyone in the community. No matter what theological justification Paul uses, these differences cannot be veiled. 1068
Ruden, Paul Among the People, 87. Cf., Neil Elliot, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 209; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 541; Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to 1 Corinthians, 180. 1069
P. Zanker, Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988); Alexandra T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (Stroud: Tempus Publishers, 2010); McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law, 154.
368 Reading Regulations for Worship in 1 Cor. 11:1-17 with Fortuna Fortuna is a bit confused concerning Paul’s regulations concerning headcoverings. For Fortuna, these regulations are useless. The argument for unity between men, women, and Christ is easy enough to follow and it is welcome. That this unity depends on what Fortuna and other women wear on their heads as well on what men do not wear is not convincing. Fortuna is aware that temples, associations, and philosophical schools have their own customs concerning dress. 1070 However, Paul’s introduction of a new theologically based regulation after years of disinterest makes no sense. 1071 If their hairstyles had caused such a disruption in worship, how is it that she and other women were able to enjoy fellowship with other believers until now? Paul is not persuasive because his attempt to correct fashion trends with ineffective theology, and his timing did not help. There is no man that is the head of Fortuna. Like many philosophically educated women before her, Fortuna has declared her relative equality with and independence from men. She is quite free to reject Paul’s unconvincing arguments and even less inclined to have him dictate to her the virtues of her sense of style. Furthermore, Paul’s argument for head-coverings threatened Fortuna’s theology, which she adopted from Paul’s earlier teachings in Corinth. Fortuna was attracted to the Pauline community because she could express her freedom in a number of ways that Paul
1070
Payne, Man and Woman, 155-61; Kloppenborg, Volentary Associations, 64; Edmondson and Keith, Roman Dress, 52, 169. Onno van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 201; Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman, 74. 1071
Martin, “Veiled Exhortation,” 263.
369 would later find intolerable. One way that Fortuna expressed her freedom was in her dress, and Paul’s theological argument for head-coverings is far less important than the theology that attracted her to the community in the first place.
Conclusion: Reading Paul on Marriage with Sophia and Fortuna Most of the popular moral philosophies celebrated marriage with varying degrees of emphasis. The Epicureans did not encourage marriage because it threatened the disconnection from attachment that characterizes the ideal wise-person, and the wiseperson (be they male or female 1072) could indulge in sex acts with anyone – as long as this act broke no law and harmed no one – because sex was natural. With the exception of Crates and Hipparchia, the Cynics did not marry because of their separation from human society unless they marry another Cynic. Stoics celebrated marriage as an enriching union between man and woman that the wise-person uses to better herself, her situation, and society. The neo-Pythagorean Theano and Perictione1073 taught wife should tolerate her husband’s use of prostitutes because of her self-control (controlling anger) and in hopes of changing his behavior through her virtue. Plutarch, our firstcentury Middle-Platonist, celebrates marriage as the best way to express human love. Paul’s teachings on marriage focus on strengthening the unity of the community. Paul gives instructions to the community on how not to do marriage: the step-mother’s affair with her step-son, and men using prostitutes. Paul has a view of marriage that is far
1072
This female sexual activity could be a reason why Epicurean women philosophers are portrayed as prostitutes. See discussion in chapter 3 above. 1073
For discussion, see chapter 6 above.
370 below the Stoics and Plutarch. He teaches that the ideal Christian does not marry, but if a person cannot control herself/himself then she/he should marry. A consolation – that married persons can practice some small measure of self control - is that the husband and wife should not withhold their bodies from one another unless they mutually agree for a short period of time. Furthermore, husbands and wives should not initiate divorce for any reason but they can grant a divorce to unbelievers who ask for one, and remarriage is forbidden for everyone but widows who lack self-control. Finally, women should wear head-coverings in worship. The rationale for all of these teachings is that no one stands alone: the affair, sex with prostitutes, and divorce all disrupt the unity of the community because everyone is unified with the body of Christ. Some issues effect Sophia and Fortuna in the same way. With regard to the stepmother, Paul is treating someone of their status with more than a little contempt. Instead of being thankful for patronage, Paul seeks to control a wealthy women by requiring the community to expel her step-son from the fellowship. This is a threat to any other patron: Paul has demonstrated that he is an ungrateful beneficiary. The issue concerning prostitutes is welcome because it encourages self-control, but trite because neither Sophia nor Fortuna is convinced that enough people in the church will submit to this teaching for it to be worth Paul’s trouble. Both Sophia and Fortuna are amused with Paul’s teaching concerning head-coverings, mostly because of Paul’s disinterest in it during previous visits and epistle(s).1074 Paul’s teaching concerning marriage and divorce is a bit strange,
1074
For the chronology of Paul, see Robert K. Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. Stanley Jones (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Rainer Riesner, Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Erdmans,
371 but it does compliment self-control. Paul shares some parallels with philosophical moralists, and if he is able to convince the church to be self-controlled in marriage (1 Cor. 7:1-5), divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-16), prostitutes (6:13-18), and head-coverings (1 Cor. 11:2-16), then Sophia and Fortuna can have an easier time supporting the church as patronesses because the church would not bring them shame.
1998); for bibliography and analysis of the epistles to Corinth, see Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 75-80; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 19-21; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 5053.
CHAPTER 7: SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN PAUL AND THE POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS
In chapter five, we explored the ways that Sophia and Fortuna would read 1 Corinthians chapters 1-4. These first chapters of 1 Corinthians separate divine wisdom from human wisdom in such a way that completely alienates Fortuna, but Sophia’s understanding of her divine wisdom enhances her sympathy for Paul’s arguments. In chapter six, we explored how Sophia and Fortuna would read Paul’s teachings concerning marriage. While Fortuna reads Paul from an increasingly hostile point of view, like Sophia she can appreciate Paul’s attempt to unify the church through selfcontrol with respect to the affair, prostitutes, head-coverings, and marriage and divorce. In this chapter, we will examine how Sophia and Fortuna would interact with Paul’s usage of the defining characteristic of the ideal wise-person in popular philosophy: selfsufficiency in 1 Cor. 9:24-7. Then, we will read 1 Cor. 9:24-7 with Sophia and Fortuna in light of their philosophical and social background. Philosophically educated women like Sophia and Fortuna would be very familiar with the Cynic-Stoic doctrine of self-sufficiency. Its most common usage in the agon motif stands at the intersection of the most popular philosophies in the first century.1075 1075
For Paul’s use of the agon motif, see Victor C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 76129. Pfitzer suggests that Paul’s usage of the agon motif is not limited to an internal struggle, 111. I agree with Ronald Hock that Paul’s struggles in Corinth were related to patronage. That is, the church desired to bring Paul into their homes like other teachers to reciprocate his ministry. Because Paul did not accept payment, he suffered by means
372
373 The agon motif is a common athletic metaphor that philosophers used to explain the importance of training oneself to have adequate mental and physical self-control to successfully live the good life. At the same time, the doctrine of self-sufficiency1076 or self-control is a central component to how popular philosophies approached many other issues such as friendship and patronage, 1077 the ideal teacher, and family life. Despite the claim from several philosophers that women can and should possess the qualities of selfsufficiency (which will be discussed below), there is not the slightest hint of this in the works that address self-sufficiency and Paul. This chapter begins with a discussion concerning Paul’s usage of the agon motif in 1 Corinthians 9. This discussion is followed by a brief summation of the agon motif the struggle of the wise-person / student for self-control as an athlete struggles for a
of his employment, the church suffered some confusion on how to reciprocate his patronage, and some members may have actively sought retribution for this offense. Hock, Social Context, 29; Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking,” 558. 1076
Cf., Abraham Malherbe’s works, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 203-17; Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); “Paul’s Self-sufficiency (Philippians 4:11)” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. J. T. Fitzgerald. NovTSup 82; (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996),125-139; Stanley Stowers, “Paul and Self-Mastery,” in Paul in the GrecoRoman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (New York: Trinity Press International, 2003), 52450. Neither Malherbe nor Stowers mentions female philosophers in their treatment of self-sufficiency, the defining quality of the teacher in many schools. The possibility of women interacting with Paul’s presentation of himself as a popular wise-person is even lessened by John T. Fitzgerald’s persistent use of “wise man” in his description of the ideal teacher, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 1077
In the TNDT entry for ste/fanoj there is no indication that women or girls could have interacted with the metaphor, TDNT 7:615-36. For Paul’s use of ste/fanoj in conjunction with the agon motif, see Pfitzer, Agon motif, 77; for patronage see page 106: “But by their continual faithfulness they ensure for him a crown on the day when the final word will be spoken on his apostolic work..”
374 crown - in Greek and Roman philosophy and its appearance in 1 Cor 9:24-7. 1078 Then, I will discuss how Sophia and Fortuna would interact with Paul’s image of the crown in 1 Corinthians 9 both as philosophically educated women and patronesses. As philosophically educated women, Fortuna and Sophia were equipped to interact with the metaphor. As wealthy patronesses, they were able to interact with the more concrete aspects of agon motif. These women helped fund the Isthmian games and were eligible to be rewarded for their patronage with an imperishable crown of gold rather than a perishable crown of celery that they earned in races or poetry competitions when they were girls. Both aspects are important to consider – the philosophical background as well as their social context as patronesses – when imagining how Sophia and Fortuna would read 1 Cor. 9:24-7. The discussion will be centered on the heart of the agon motif, the means by which people discipline themselves to win the imperishable crown: selfsufficiency.
Setting up the agon motif: 1 Corinthians 9:1-23 Philosophical traditions that either parallel or influence 1 Cor 9.24-7 are widely known and recognized by New Testament scholars.1079 However, before addressing the 1078
Self-sufficiency is characterized by self-control. Cf., Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 139; Stowers, “Paul and Self-Mastery,” 524-50. 1079
The most notable work in English is Pfitzner, Agon motif, 23-37. The motif is such a recurring one that there are too many examples to list here. I will choose some examples from Pfitzner, who traces the motif from Xenophanes through the Hellenistic and Roman philosophers and Judaism. Cf., Roman Garrison, “Paul’s Use of the Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9,” SR 22, no. 2 (1993): 209-17; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 710-17; Garland, Corinthians, 441-5.
375 nature of self-sufficiency in the popular philophers, its setting in 1 Corinthians chapter 9 needs to be examined. Paul begins chapter 9 by explaining his relationship to wealthier members of the church, and he does so in a manner that clearly demonstrates an independence from the undue influences of personal patronage (1 Cor. 9:1-18). After Paul argues by analogy to a vinedresser, soldier, and a shepherd (1 Cor. 9:7) that he has the right to receive all of the benefits of personal patronage from the Corinthians (payment, meals, other material benefits, and perhaps a beneficial marriage), he volunteers his apostolic services for free, and in this service his full freedom is expressed (1 Cor. 9:18). Paul’s free service is seemingly in contrast to his opponents (‘rightful claim’ is from their point of view, not Paul’s, 1 Cor. 9:12), other apostles (1 Cor. 9:12),1080 and meant to shame the Corinthian patrons who evidently were taking pride in supporting them. Furthermore, the wealthy Corinthians were taking advantage of their rights by taking other believers to court,1081 eating meat sacrificed to idols, 1082 marrying and divorcing to their advantage like other elites, and supporting rhetors that agitated Paul’s sensibilities.1083 Everything that leads up to the agon motif in 1 Cor. 9 serves to present Paul as a self-controlled person in contrast to his opponents and at least some of the wealthy members of the community. Paul is not dependent on a personal patron and corrupted by 1080
Joop F. M. Smit, “The Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:7-9:27,” CBQ 59, no. 3 (1997), 489. 1081
Cf., Collins and Harrington, Corinthians, 330.
1082
For bibliography on the identification of the “strong” with higher status and the “weak” with lower status see Thiselton, Corinthians, 644. 1083
Garland, Corinthians, 398 n. 5.
376 the influence of a patron’s wealth and power.1084 Instead, he is content to survive by working with his hands like a poor, powerless person. Moreover, Paul has made himself a servant to “everyone”: Jews, Gentiles, and the weak (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We should observe that Paul clarifies the Jews as those under the law and the Gentiles as those not under the law – but he does not pair the weak with the strong. Paul identifies himself with Jews and Gentiles as well as the poor (weak) but not the rich (strong).1085 This point cannot be emphasized enough: while Paul does not participate in personal patronage (eg., attach himself to the house of a patron), he never shows discontent with patronage of the community (ie., wealthier people giving to the community). However, his contempt for personal patronage may well discourage people from giving to the community that values his teaching. It is within this framework that Sophia and Fortuna read the important philosophical concept of self-sufficiency and the agon motif 1 Corinthians 9.
Self-sufficiency in Popular Philosophy The concept of self-sufficiency is an important one in popular philosophy because it was used to describe the characteristics of someone who has mastered philosophy: the wise-person. Self-sufficiency is the result of an inner control of the self rather than a seclusion from the community, friendship, and inspiration from God. The importance of self-sufficiency in a study of 1 Corinthians is that Paul utilizes this ideal – as he does 1084
Collins and Harrington, Corinthians, 331; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians,
411. 1085
Hays, Corinthians, 154; Collins and Harrington, Corinthians, 325; Ciampa and Rosner offer a description of the “weakness motif” in 1 Corinthians, Corinthians, 429; Malina and Pilch write that in some Hellenistic contexts, “the weak” denotes a person unfamiliar with the sophistication of elite life, Corinthians, 94.
377 elsewhere – to assert his authority as apostle (1 Cor 7:4, 9; 9:24-7).1086 From his perspective, Paul has attained the level of self-control that is characteristic of a philosophical sage even though he claims not to have come to the Corinthians “in wisdom.” As such, 1 Cor. 9:24-7 can be an effort by Paul to convince Sophia and Fortuna that he has realized the ideal of being a self-sufficient teacher so that they will recognize his authority to instruct and correct. Before this issue is explored, self-control and its role in the achievement of self-sufficiency needs to be examined. Self-control (often with the discipline like an athlete in the agon motif) is the method by which a person achieves self-sufficiency. While the popular philosophers debated the definitions of self-control and self-sufficiency, the discipline that it takes to achieve the desired goal is highly praised. For example, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) teaches that the self-controlled person is the ideal good person, “For it is a fundamental assumption with us, and a general opinion, that wickedness makes men more unrighteous; and lack of self-control seems to be a sort of wickedness.”1087 Already in Aristotle’s time (384-322 BCE), the Cynic wise-person was characterized by the ideal of au)ta/rkeia.1088 There are two examples of self-sufficiency from the Cynics that are applicable here. First, there is an epistle attributed to Diogenes 1086
The importance of self-sufficiency in the Corinthian correspondence is made evident by Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 117-84; in the Thessalonian letters by Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 203-17; and in Philippians by Malherbe, “Paul’s Selfsufficiency,” 125-39. 1087
“fai/netai de kai tou=to a)du/naton. u(po/keitai gar h(mi=n kai dokei= h( moxqhri/a a)dikwte/rouj poiei=n, h( d’ a)krasi/a moxqhri/a tij fai/netai,” Arist. Eth. Eud. 1223b (Rackham, LCL). 1088
Teles, Peri au0tarkei/aj 5H-20H.
378 the Cynic (of Corinth), who met the champion Cicermus on the road to Olympia. Diogenes convinced Cicermus to disregard his crown and pursue self-sufficiency: h1ke de e0pi ta o1ntwj kala kai ma/qe mh u9po a0nqrwpi/wn tupto/menoj katerei=n, a0ll’ u9po th=j yuxh=j, mhd’ i0ma=si mhde pugmai=j, a0lla peni/a?, a0ll’ a0doci/a?, a0lla dusgenei/a?, a0lla fugadei/a?. tou/twn gar a0skh/saj katafronei=n makari/wj men zh/seij, a0nektw=j de a0poqanh=: e0kei=na de zhlw=n zh/seij talaipw/rwj. learn to be steadfast under blows, not by puny men, but of the spirit, not under leather straps or fists, but through poverty, disrepute, lowly birth, and exile. For when you have trained to despise these things, you will live happily, and will die in a tolerable way.1089 The agon motif is not directly applied to women when male or female philosophers address women and self-control or self-sufficiency. It is not present in the other Cynic epistles, the Pythagorean letters attributed to women, the works by Seneca addressed to Helvia and Marcia, the Diogenes of Oneoanda inscriptions, the essays by Musonius Rufus concerning the philosophical education of women, nor does Heirocles address it when he writes about marriage. However, in all of these works there is some emphasis on a philosophically motivated self-control that would prepare Sophia and Fortuna to interact with Paul’s usage of the agon motif in 1 Corinthians. Second, there is one example in the history of women in philosophy that applies an athletic metaphor to a woman. An epistle attributed to the Cynic Crates (c. 365-285 BCE) to his wife Hipparchia, “You believe, it seems, that toiling is the cause of of your not having to toil. For you would not have given birth so easily, unless, while pregnant, you had continued to toil as athletes do,” “pe/peisai a1ra o1ti to ponei=n ai1tio/n e0sti
1089
Diogenes to Phaenylus 4; Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 137.
379 tou= mh ponei=n. ou0de gar o3ti to ponei=n ai1tio/n e0sti tou= mh ponei=n: ou0de gar a1n w{de/ g’ eu0marw=j a0pe/tekej, ei0 mh ku/ousa e0po/neij w3sper oi9 a0gwnistai/.”1090 Self-sufficiency is achieved by the mastery of self-control: the ability to renounce one’s reputation, fearlessness of death, the ability to be generous in wealth and content in poverty; and the achievement of these qualities makes the wise-person invincible. Paul’s hardship list in 1 Cor. 4:9-13 nicely matches these qualifications: Paul and the apostles are hungry and thirsty, inadequately clothed, abused and homeless, they work with their hands, they are despised, reviled, presecuted, and slandered, but are able to endure all of these hardships because of their appropriate relationship with divine wisdom. It is critical to note that in the popular philosophers, the achievement of selfsufficiency is more valuable than the specific methodology that characterizes a particular school. As the popular philosophers describe self-sufficiency, they consistently present one person as their exemplar who pre-dates all of their methods, Socrates.1091 So while the moral philosophers may boast in their Cynic, Stoic, or other methodology, what they truly value is the outcome. This is very useful when Paul claims to be made selfsufficient with the help of Christ: the highly valued outcome has been achieved in him through Christ (cf., Phil. 4:11-13). He has not followed a Cynic or Stoic methodology (which did not exclude help from the divine), but has been made self-sufficient and he 1090 1091
Crates to Hipparchia 33.1; Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 83.
Xen. Mem. 1.3.14; Teles, Peri au0tarkei/aj 5H-20H; Cic. Off. 1.90, Tusc. 5.10.30; Epict. Disc. 4.5.4; and Sen. Constan. 8-18. Cf. Diog. Laert. 2.27. The exception to this practice would be the Epicureans, because their sworn enemies – the Stoics and the Academics, see Long, Stoic Studies, 9-10; Mark T. Riley, “The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates,” Phoenix 34, no. 1 (1980): 55-68; James Warren, Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
380 lives a life without care for his reputation, he is unafraid of death, and he lives a selfless life. It is likely that Seneca (4 BCE - 65 CE) and others would have commended Paul for his manner of living. 1092 They would value Paul’s refusal to accept payment for his preaching, admire his ability to suffer for the sake of his teachings, and appreciate the concern and sacrifice that he made for his friends. The practice of the self-sufficient life does not preclude friendship: Paul, Sophia, and Fortuna could all practice self-control and a renouncement of the excesses of elite life while also practicing friendship. Because the wise-person claimed self-sufficiency, Aristotle notes that there were some people who thought that such a person would not desire friends nor be able to selflessly practice friendship (7.1244b). a)lla mhn kai to/te faneron a)n ei)=nai do/ceien w(j ou) xrh/sewj e(/neka o( fi/loj ou)d’ w)felei/aj, a)lla di’ a)rethn fi/loj mo/noj. o(/tan gar mhqenoj e)ndeei=j w)=men, to/te touj sunaplausome/nouj zhtou=si pa/ntej, kai touj eu)= peisome/nouj ma=llon h) touj poih/sontaj. a)mei/nw d’ e)/xomen kri/sin au)ta/rkeij o)/ntej h) met’ e)ndei/aj, o(/te ma/lista tw=n suzh=n a)ci/wn deo/meqa fi/lwn. But assuredly even his case would seem to show that a friend is not for the sake of utility or benefit but the only real friend is the one loved on account of goodness. For when we are not in need of something, then we seek all people to share our enjoyments, and beneficiaries rather than benefactors; and we can judge them better when we are self-sufficing than when in need, and we most need friends who are worthy of our society. 1093 Aristotle (384-322 BCE) affirms that the self-sufficient person will not seek a friend for utility or society because she is sufficient to herself for these benefits. Such a person is the best equipped to seek out a friend for the sake of goodness alone. Cicero (106-43 BCE) will insist that the good person alone can be a friend, and this good person is self1092
I do not agree with Malherbe that Paul’s modifications to the methodology would have been shocking to his audience, “Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians,” 249. 1093
Arist. Eth. Eud. 7.1244b.15-20 (Rackham, LCL).
381 controlled.1094 The one who needs nothing - the self-sufficient wise-person1095 - is the only one who can pursue friendship selflessly. 1096 Another threat to friendship, because of the supposed lack of participation in the giving and receiving of gifts, is the teaching that the wise-person “lacks nothing that he can receive as a gift” (nihil deest quod accipere possit loco muneris).1097 In his essay On the Constancy of the Wise-Person, Seneca explains that selfsufficiency is a matter of self-control. Once a person realizes that death is not an injury, Seneca argues, all other pains and injuries are easier to bear: losses and pains, disgrace, changes of abode, bereavements, and separations (8.3). Seneca discusses the possible injuries that can befall a person: losing a long-chased prize like his legacy or the goodwill of a lucrative house (9.2). To support the commonality of his claim, Seneca writes that even Epicurus assents that the wise-person is invincible (15.4-16.1). The wise-person is unafraid of insult (15.5); Socrates is listed as a general example of how a wise-person can endure the insults of comedies that were written that scoffed at him as well as his wife drenching his head with sewage (18.5). Seneca’s conclusion concerning the nature of the wise-person is, ““But his virtue has placed him in another region of the universe; he has nothing in common with you” (“Non obruetur eorum coetu et qualis singulis, talis universes obsistet”).1098 1094
Cic. Off. 1.90.
1095
Cic. Amic. 65.
1096
Cic. Amic. 51.
1097
Sen. Constant. 8.1 (Basore, LCL).
1098
Sen. Constant. 8.2 (Basore, LCL).
382 According to Seneca, the wise-person seeks friends in order to practice friendship. Epicurus taught that the wise-person seeks friends so that, in the words of Seneca, ““that there may be someone to sit beside him when he is ill, to help him when he is in prison or in want,” “ut habeat, qui sibi aergo adsideat, succurrat in vincula coniecto vel inopi.”1099 Seneca, however, says that the wise-person has friends so that he may have someone to care for: someone to sit by when they are ill and free from prison when they are in hostile hands (9.7). Furthermore, the one who enters into friendship only to have someone serve them is practicing friendship for the wrong reason (9.8-9). Such a person is most likely a fair-weather (temporarias populus) friend. As a self-sufficient person, Seneca seeks a friend so that he may have someone to die for or follow into exile – not someone with whom he wants to strike a bargain (9.10). It is critical to note that for Paul his philosophically educated readers, selfsufficiency is a rise above fortune (eg, circumstances) that is not threatened by help from the divine.1100 Although it may seem like self-sufficiency is achieved without any aid, Seneca (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE) writes: “The Supreme Good calls for no practical aids from the outside; it is developed at home, and arises entirely within itself. If the good seeks any portion of itself from without, it begins to be subject to the play of Fortune” 1099 1100
Sen. Ep. 9.7 (Gummere, LCL).
There are differences between the Stoic pantheism of Seneca and the theology of Paul, especially as outlined by Lightfoot, Philippians, 270-328. However, the distinction between an experimental external reality with a personal Deity and following nature as expressed by the divine seems rather artifical, particularly when one must follow the same general methodology. Paul must deny himself in order to follow Christ, who we are told empowers him. Whether or not that is true is altogether a different issue. I cannot imagine Seneca or Epictetus objecting to Paul receiving help from Christ to maintain his self-sufficiency.
383 (“Summum bonum extrinsecus instrumenta non quaerit. Domi colitur, ex se totum est. Incipit fortunae esse subiectum, si quam partem sui foris quaerit”). 1101 Seneca clarifies himself a bit further: Non sunt ad caelum elevande manus nec exorandus aedituus, ut nos ad aurem simulacri, quasi magis exaudiri possimus, admittat; prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat. Bonus vero vir sine deo nemo est; an potest aliquis supra fortunam nisi ab illo adiutus exurgere? We do not need to uplift our hands towards heaven, or beg to the keeper of the temple to let us approach the idol’s ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard. God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so we are treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. Can anyone rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise?1102 Seneca believes that the wise-person can only achieve self-sufficiency with the help of God. In Epistle 41, Seneca says that if we see a person who is fearless in the face of troubles, not following his desires, and happy and peaceful in a storm, we say “A divine power has descended upon that man” (“Vis isto divina descendit”). Animum excellentem, modernatum, omnia tamquam minora transeuntem, quicquid timemus optamusque ridentem, caelestis potentia agitat. Non potest res tanta sine adminiculo numinis stare. When a soul rises superior to other souls, when it is under control, when it passes through every experience as if it were a small account, when it smiles at our fears and our prayers, it is stirred by a force from heaven. A thing like this cannot stand upright unless it be propped by the divine.1103
1101
Ep. 9.15 (Gummere, LCL).
1102
Ep. 41.1-2 (Gummere, LCL).
1103
Ep. 41.5 (Gummere, LCL).
384 Not only is self-sufficiency attained with the help of the divine, Seneca concludes that the wise-person can only retain the qualities of self-sufficiency with divine help. It is significant that other schools such as the Pythagoreans1104 and Epicureans1105 did not reject this ideal of self-control and self-sufficiency as it became popular with the Stoics and Cynics. On the contrary, other schools debated with the Stoics as to precisely what self-sufficiency and its method meant for the sage.1106 Therefore, women who were exposed to the popular philosophies, not just Stoicism and Cynicism, could have interacted with the way that Paul expressed himself using his model of self-control and self-sufficiency. The Pythagorean Ecphantus the Crotonian (c. 400 BCE) wrote that a king and his subjects should imitate God and seek self-sufficiency for the good of the community.1107 Diogenes Laertius (fl. 3rd CE) says that Pythagoras contrasted the crown – along with other rewards – with philosophers, who search for truth and not fame. 1108 Philosophically educated women also wrote concerning self-sufficiency. From the pseudo-Pythagorean corpus, Perictione (late 4th BCE?) writes:
1104
Allen, Concept of Woman, 142-51; C. J. De Vogel, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956), 105-6, 111. 1105
See especially Epicurus’ section on au0ta/rkeia in Epistula ad Menoeceum 130-5, text and translation with commentary available in Epicurus: The Extant Remains, ed. Cyril Bailey (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1926), 83-93. For differences between Zeno and Epicurus with respect to the ideal wise-person see P. A. Waerdt, “The Justice of the Epircurean Wise Man,” CQ 37, no. 2 (1987): 404; for common qualities of self-sufficiency in Stoicism and Epicureanism, see Ivars Avontis, “Training in Frugality in Epicurus and Seneca,” Phoenix 31, no. 3 (1977): 215. 1106
Sen. Constan. 15.4.
1107
Ecphantus, On Kings.
1108
Diog. Laert. 6.
385 Th_n a(rmoni/hn gunai=ka nw&sasqai dei= fronh&sio&j te kai swfrosu&nhj plei/hn: ka&rta ga_r yuxh_n pepnu~sqai dei= ei0j a)reth&n, w3st’ e1stai kai dikai/h kai a)ndrhi/h kai frone/ousa kai au)tarkei/h kallunome/nh kai kenh_n do&chn mise/ousa. e0k tou&twn ga_r e1rgmata kala_ gi/netai gunaiki e0j au)th&n te kai a1ndra: kai te/kea kai oi]kon: polla&kij de kai po&lei, ei1 ge po&liaj h2 e1qnea h( toi/h ge kratu&noi, w(j e0pi basilhi/hj o(re/omen. It is necessary to consider the harmonious woman full of intelligence and moderation. For it is necessary for a soul to be extremely brave and intelligent and well decorated with self-sufficiency and hating baseless opinion. For from this comes great benefit for a woman, for herself as well as her husband and children and her house, often too for her city, if such a woman rules cities and peoples, as we see in kingdoms.1109 Epicurus (341-270 BCE) references the rewards of self-control and self-sufficiency, “The wise man when he has accomodated himself to straits knows better how to give than to receive: so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.”1110 Cicero and Seneca utilized the metaphor of the crown to express their ideals concerning friendship. Cicero used the metaphor of the crown to typify Stoic friendship: Nec tamen nostrae nobis utilitates omittendae sunt aliisque tradendae, cum his ipsi egeamus, sed suae cuique utilitati, quod sine alterius iniuria fiat, serviendum est. Scite Chrysippus, ut multa, ‘qui stadium, inquit, currit, eniti et contendere debet quam maxime possit, ut vincat, supplantare eum, quicum certet, aut manu depellere nullo modo debet; sic in vita sibi quemque petere, quod pertineat ad usum, non iniquum est, alteri deripere ius non est.’ And yet we are not required to sacrifice our own interest and surrender to others what we need for ourselves, but each one should consider his own interests, as far as he may without injury to his neighbour’s. “When a man enters the foot- race,” says Chrysippus with his usual aptness, “it is his duty to put forth all his strength and strive with all his might to win; but he ought never with his foot to trip, or with his hand to foul a competitor. Thus in the stadium of life, it is not unfair for anyone
1109
Perictione, On the Harmony of Women 1 = Stob. 4.25.50. Translation from Plant, Women Writers, 76. 1110
Epicurus, Fragmenta, 44; cf., 34, 45, 70, 77.
386 to seek to obtain what is needful for his own advantage, but he has no right to wrest it from his neighbour.1111 Seneca also uses the metaphor of the crown to teach an important aspect of friendship: Qui gratus futurus est, statim, dum accipit, de reddendo cogitet. Chrysippus quidem ait illum uelut in certamen cursus conpositum et carceribus inclusum opperiri debere tempus suum, ad quod uelut dato signo prosiliat; et quidem magna illi contentione opus est, magna celeritate, ut consequatur antecedentem. The man who intends to be grateful, immediately, while he is receiving, should turn his thought to repaying. Such a man, declares Chrysippus, like a racer, who is all set for the struggle and remains shut up within the barriers, must await the proper moment to leap forth when, as it were, the signal has been given; and, truly, he will need to show great energy, great swiftness, if he is to overtake the other who has the start of him. 1112 In On Providence, Seneca explains that the Olympic crown is worth nothing, but the reward of pursuing philosophy is true strength that can withstand any opponent.1113 Plutarch, when discussing why it is proper to have debates at the dinner table, quotes Strato: kai Stra&twn o( fusiko&j, a)kou&saj o3ti pollaplasi/ouj e1xei Mene/dhmoj maqhta&j, ‘ti/ ou}n‘ e1fh ‘qaumasto&n, ei0 plei/one/j ei0sin oi9 lou&esqai tw~n a)lei/fesqai boulome/nwn; And Strato, the natural philosopher, when he heard that Menedemus had many more pupils than he himself had, said, “Why be surprised if there are more who wish to bathe than to be anointed for the contest?”1114 The concept of self-sufficiency was also applied to women by the philosophers. The earliest application of self-sufficiency to women appears in Teles the Cynic. Teles 1111
Cic. Off. 3.42 (Miller, LCL).
1112
Sen. Ben. 2.25 (Basore, LCL).
1113
Sen. Prov. 3.14-4.4.
1114
Plut. Mor. 472e (Helmbold, LCL).
387 applies the attributes of self-sufficiency to exemplary women who grieved properly for the loss of their sons in battle.1115 Grieving must not be done in excess but self-controlled and tempered by reason. This kind of application is also found in Seneca when he consoles Helvia and Marcia, encouraging them to approach the contests of life strengthened by the principles of Stocism.1116 In convincing Marcia to cling to Stoic philosophy in her time of loss, Seneca contrasts two female role models: Octavia, who has no self-control, and Livia, who is self-controlled.1117 We see that he applies the qualities of self-sufficiency as the solution to the problem to excessive grieving: the self-control that allows a person to be fearless of death and exile, able to have success in both wealth and poverty, and so on.1118 According to Seneca, by adopting his Stoic mindset, Marcia will be able to grieve the loss of her son in a healthy, natural way. Similar reasoning is used in Seneca’s letter to his mother. He applies the qualities of self-sufficiency to himself and then advises his mother to adopt the same philosophy. 1119 He exempts her from common vices of sexual immorality and
1115
Teles 57H-60H. Teles does not name the women but contrasts nameless women from Attica, Laconia, and Sparta who all reacted differently to the loss of their sons. It is almost certainly rhetoric against women in Attica who have not lived up, at least in his eyes, to the legendary women of Laconia and Sparta. It is nevertheless intriguing that women are examples of how the philosopher should grieve. 1116
C. E. Manning, “The Consolatory Tradition and Seneca’s Attitude to the Emotions,” G&R 21, no. 1 (1974): 71-81. 1117
Sen. Marc. 2.2-4.
1118
Sen. Marc. 9.1-10.5.
1119
Sen. Helv. 5.2-6.1; 10.3
388 encourages her to follow the example of Cornelia and Rustilia, who bore similar loss with his (moderate) Stoic resolve. 1120 He reminds his mother that she never participated in several vices and therefore could not blame excessive grief on her feminine weakness.1121 Instead, Helvia should take refuge in philosophy. Itaque illo te duco, quo omnibus, qui fortunam fugiunt, confugiendum est, ad liberalia studia. Illa sanabunt vulnus tuum, illa omnem tristitiam tibi evellent. His etiam si numquam adsuesses, nunc utendum erat; sed quantum tibi patris mei antiquus rigor premisit, omnes bonas artes non quidem comprendisti, attigisti tamen. And so I guide you to that in which all who fly from Fortune must take refuge - to philosophic studies. They will heal your wound; they will uproot your sadness. Even if you had not been acquainted with them before, you would need to use them now; but so far as the old-fashioned strictness of my father permitted you, though you have not indeed fully grasped all the liberal arts, still you had some dealings with them.1122 Like Seneca, Musonius Rufus teaches that women should learn Stoic philosophy and apply it to their lives. While he does not envision roles for women aside from their roles as wives and mothers, he invites women to enter the struggle of the self-controlled life: ei]ta de e0mpoihte/on ai0dw~ pro_j a3pan ai0sxro&n: w{n e0ggenome/nwn a)na&gkh sw&fronaj ei]nai kai a1ndra kai gunai=ka. kai mh_n to_n paideuo&menon o)rqw~j, o3stij a2n h }, ei1te a1rrhn ei1te qh&leia, e0qiste/on men a)ne/xesqai po&nou, e0qiste/on de mh_ fobei=sqai qa&naton, e0qiste/on de mh_ tapeinou~sqai pro_j sumfora_n mhdemi/an: di’ o3swn a1n tij ei1h a)ndrei=oj.
1120
Sen. Helv. 16.6-7.
1121
Sen. Helv. 16.1-5.
1122
Sen. Helv. 27.3-4 (Basore, LCL). Seneca goes on to say that if his father had been thorough in educating his mother, that she would have been fully equipped to handle anything in life. His father withheld a complete education from her because he thought some women learned only so they could impress others and not to enrich their lives. Cf., Juv. Sat. 6.242.
389 When these two qualities have been created within them, man and woman are of necessity self-controlled. And most of all, the child who is trained properly, whether boy or girl, must be accustomed to endure hardship, not to fear death, not to be disheartened in the face of any misfortune; he must in short be accustomed to every situation which calls for courage.1123 Musonius concludes, “I only urge that they [women] should aquire from philosophy goodness in conduct and nobility of character. Now in very truth philosophy is training in nobility of character and nothing else,” “a)ll’ o3ti h1qouj xrhsto&thta kai kaloka)gaqi/an tro&pou kthte/on tai=j gunaici/n: e0peidh_ kai filosofi/a kaloka)gaqi/aj e0stin e0pith&deusij kai ou)den e3teron.” 1124 In this section, we have seen that in the popular philosophers, self-sufficiency is highly valued: it is often the defining characteristic of the wise-person. There are several critical parallels to the type of self-sufficiency that Paul practices: the method is selfcontrol in all circumstances in life, the self-sufficient person can practice friendship, and it is achieved and maintained with help from the divine. Paul attributes these qualities to himself throughout 1 Corinthians, but in 1 Cor. 9:24-7, he utilizes the agon motif to compare his struggle for self-control to the successful athlete. Because he has mastered self-control, he has achieved the ideal that is valued by many other teachers: selfsufficiency. An examination of the philosophical traditions of agon motif will further explain the importance of its appearance in 1 Cor. 9:24-7 and how philosophically educated women would read this passage.
1123
Muson. 4.79-82 (Lutz, 48-9).
1124
Muson. 4.98-100 (Lutz, 49).
390 Philosophical Traditions of the agon motif The agon motif is used by many schools to illustrate the internal and external suffering of the sage as she trains herself regarding self-mastery. 1125 According to Plato, Socrates likens the thoughtful life to a contest (agon), ““And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth,” “parakalw~ de kai tou_j a1llouj pa&ntaj a)nqrw&pouj, kaq’ o3son du&namai, kai dh_ kai se a)ntiparakalw~ e0pi tou~ton to_n bi/on kai to_n a)gw~na tou~ton, o4n e0gw& fhmi a)nti pa&ntwn tw~n e0nqa&de a)gw&nwn ei]nai,”1126 This life, of course, is the struggle to train oneself in virtue. According to Plutarch, Epicurus taught that people should strive for the crown of a0taracia (impassiveness).1127 Lucretius reflects his struggle to be an Epicurean poet: tu mihi supremae praescripta ad candida callis currenti spatium praemonstra, callida musa Calliope, requies hominum divomque voluptas, te duce ut insigni capiam cum laude coronam. As I race toward the white line that marks the end of my course, do you, clever Muse Calliope, repose of human beings and delight of the gods, point out the track to me, and under your guidance I may win the garland of victory with glorious praise. 1128
1125
The most obvious explanation for the wide-spread use of this metaphor is rooted in the observation that education occurred in the gymnasia, see Pfitzner, Agon motif, 23. 1126
Pl. Grg. 526d (Lamb, LCL).
1127
Plut. Mor. 1125c.
1128
Lucretius 6.94 (Smith, Lucretius, 91).
391 The reward for the athlete who undergoes hardship and gains the victor’s crown is often contrasted with the philosopher and student who discipline themselves for a more beneficial reward. Seneca the Younger, Musonius Rufus, and Epictetus represent first century Stoic philosophers who followed this ancient tradition. Seneca writes that athletes punish their bodies only to receive a crown, but the Stoic who punishes it for philosophy receives everlasting peace. Athletae quantum plagarum ore, quantum toto corpore excipiunt! ferunt tamen omne tormentum gloriae cupiditate nec tantum quia pugnant ista patiuntur, sed ut pugnent: exercitatio ipsa tormentum est. Nos quoque evincamus omnia, quorum praemium non corona nec palma est nec tubicen praedicationi nominis nostri silentium faciens, sed virtus et firmitas animi et pax in ceterum parta, si semel in aliquo certamine debellata fortuna est. What blows do athletes receive on their faces and all over their bodies! Nevertheless, through their desire for fame they endure every torture, and they undergo these things not only because they are fighting but in order to be able to fight. Their very training means torture. So let us also win the way to victory in all our struggles, - for the reward is not a garland or a palm or a trumpeter who calls for silence at the proclamation of our names, but rather virtue, steadfastness of soul, and a peace that is won for all time, if fortune has once been utterly vanquished in any combat.1129 In his description of the Stoic wise-person in his essay On Firmness, Seneca again utilizes the agon motif. Because the wise-person practices the self-control in virtue like an athlete, the wise-person is seeking to be free from the vanity that would cause distress over misfortune: Nam si tangit illum iniuria, et mouet et inpellit; caret autem ira sapiens, quam excitat iniuriae species, nec aliter careret ira nisi et iniuria, quam scit sibi non posse fieri. Inde tam erectus laetusque est, inde continuo gaudio elatus; adeo autem ad offensiones rerum hominumque non contrahitur ut ipsa illi iniuria usui sit, per quam experimentum sui capit et uirtutem temptat.
1129
Sen. Ep. 78.16 (Gummere, LCL).
392 Our aim is not that you may be prevented from doing injury, but that the wise man may cast all injuries far from him, and by his endurance and his greatness of soul protect himself from them. Just so in the sacred games many have won the victory by wearing out the hands of their assailants through stubborn endurance.1130 Musonius Rufus (fl. 1st CE) laments that some athletes risk their lives in contest but do not train their bodies and minds in philosophy. 1131 Epictetus (55-135 CE), a student of Musonius Rufus, is also fond of the metaphor.1132 In light of the evidence presented above, Sophia and Fortuna were well positioned to interact with an idea as basic as self-control - the point of the athletic metaphor in 1 Cor 9:24-7 - and determine for themselves how Paul adopts, modifies, or challenges the precise view that they hold. The metaphor may call to mind specific challenges which were relative to their lives: the loss of friends and family, the embarrassment of lawsuits, or whether to continue to support Paul’s ministry. The question arises, then, how would Sophia and Fortuna interact Paul’s usage of this popular motif?
Sophia and the Philosophical Tradition The most important concept to glean from popular philosophy is that the outcome of self-sufficiency is more important than the method. However, the self-control of a champion athlete in training is a good metaphor for the self-discipline that achieves and characterizes self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is not only the defining characteristic of
1130
Sen. Constant. 10.1 (Basore, LCL).
1131
Cf., Richard Valantasis, “Demons, Adversaries, Devils, Fishermen: The Asceticism of ‘Authoritative Teaching’ (NHL, VI, 3) in the Context of Roman Asceticism,” JR 81, no. 4 (2001): 553; Garland, Corinthians, 445. 1132
Epict. Disc. 3.22.57; 3.26.31; 4.10.10.
393 the wise-person, it prepares someone to be a selfless friend and patron. Sophia or Fortuna would not need to isolate themselves from the community both in personal fellowship and patronage because they valued or attempted to achieve a sort of selfsufficiency. Self-sufficiency is also not prohibitive of participation in the divine nature of Paul’s wisdom. Sophia can embrace both the qualities of the self-controlled wise-person without being overly concentrated on herself that she cannot attribute some credit to God for helping her attain wisdom. As such, she can accept Paul’s claim to the attainment of the qualities of the Stoic wise-person because of his calling as an apostle. It naturally follows that if Paul has a unique relationship with the divine, he has a unique relationship with divine wisdom, which produces an outstanding result: the realization of selfsufficiency. However, it would be difficult for any patroness to read about Paul’s independence from patronage. It certainly appears that Paul is utterly ungrateful for any support that Sophia might give or want to give him for his valued services.
Fortuna and the Philosophical Tradition Fortuna’s frustration with Paul is further aggravated by his outright claim to something that he intimated before: the realization of the qualities of the ideal wiseperson. And at this point it’s a double insult: Paul appears to show no appreciation for her sustained support for himself or the church. Paul declares in 1 Cor 9:2-6 that as apostles, he and his associates have the right to food and drink without working for a living. Despite this basic right (continued with many examples in 1 Cor. 9:6-18) – not unlike any other client who would attach him/herself to a household – Paul and his associates instead choose the high road and reject personal support from wealthier
394 members of the Corinthian community. In fact, Paul claims that he is not writing to secure such support (1 Cor. 9:15). Quite the contrary: he associates his Gospel with his independence from personal patronage, and he is bound to preach the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:16). Instead, Paul’s reward is not in the support of patronesses but in boasting that he preaches the Gospel both free of charge and free from undue influence from an outside source. Reading 1 Corinthians in this light – from the perspective of Fortuna, a distanced philosophically educated woman – it may seem as if Paul is sharing with the struggles of the poor instead of enjoying the gifts of the wealthy. Paul writes that he became a servant of everyone: those outside the law, the Jews, and the weak, and everyone else (1 Cor. 9:19-22) except for people like Fortuna who could provide support (the strong). And he makes this sacrifice for the Gospel so that he can share with them its blessings (1 Cor. 9:23). The sharing in the blessings of the Gospel with everyone but the strong (1 Cor. 9:19-22) can be contrasted with Paul’s metaphor of the wealthy Corinthians as kings so that he can rule with them (1 Cor. 4:8). If Paul cannot personally appreciate her support, Fortuna finds no motivation to continue supporting the church according to his interests. Paul then has opportunity to withstand all of the sufferings due to poor patronal support that he claims to have willingly refused. He then gives the means by which he endures every trial: he “runs” like the champion who wins the race, seeking the imperishable rather than the perishable crown. Fortuna can appreciate that Paul encourages the community to practice self-control. If the more serious offenses of the Christian community (or even rumors of it) were made known to Fortuna’s friends, she could suffer some embarrassment. These offenses would include strange sexual
395 practices, mysterious and rowdy religious practices, and lawsuits between group members. Fortuna is relieved to hear that a philosophical discipline of self-control is being taught by Paul as a noble act, earning the self-controlled person an imperishable crown. The problem is, Paul is claiming to realize this ideal.
The agon motif and Female Athletes in the Greek East In the epigraphic evidence, victories of female athletes and the terminology of the “crown” that they contain is important evidence that wealthier women like Paul’s patronesses could relate to Paul’s athletic metaphors. From the earliest pan-Hellenic games, women participated as competitors, and the imperial period saw women as patrons and presidents of the games as well. Pausanius says that there was a hero shrine to Cynisca along with several others in Laconia, and that she bred the horses that led her to victory.1133 Also in Olympia there was a crown, bronze horses, a statue made by Apelles, and the epigram by an unknown poet to celebrate her victories. 1134 Spa/rtaj men basile=ej e0moi pate/rej kai a0delfoi/. a3rmasi d’ w0kupdo/dwn i3ppwn nikw=sa Kuni/ska ei0ko/na ta/nd’ e1sthsa. mo/nan de/ me fami gunaikw=n 0Elladoj e0k pa/saj to/nde labei=n ste/fanon. Kings of Sparta were my fathers and bothers, and I, Cynisca1135, winning the race with my chariot of swift-footed horses,1136 erected this statue. I assert that I am the only woman in all Greece who won this crown.1137
1133
Paus. 3.15.1.
1134
Paus. 5.12.5; cf., 6.1.6.
1135
Cynisca is mentioned by Xen. Ages. 9.6 and Paus. 3.8.1, 15.1; 5.12.5; 6.1.6. The name Cynisca, “little hound,” may be a nickname for a tomboyish woman. Sarah Pomeroy suggests that Cyniska may have been as old as 50 when she won the race, Spartan Women (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 21. For studies on the unique position of women in Sparta, see Thomas Scanlon, “Virgineum Gymnasium. Spartan
396 Pausanius identifies Cynisca as the daughter of king Archidamas and her epigram as one of only two poems that celebrate royal Spartans.1138 Xenophon and Plutarch attribute Cynisca’s victory to the influence of her powerful family, while Pausanius seems to indicate that she won on her own merit.1139 The victory of Cynisca belongs to the games of old, 1140 whereas the inscription found at Delphi honoring three other female victors in the Isthmain games - Tryphosa, Hedea, and Dionysia - belongs to Paul’s day.1141 Females and Early Greek Athletics,” in Archaeology of the Olympics, ed. W. Raschke (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 185-216; Barton Lee Kunstler, “Family Dynamics and Female Power in Ancient Sparta,” Helios 13, no. 2 (1986): 31-48; Claude Mosse, “Women in the Spartan Revolutions of the Third Century BC,” in Women’s History and Ancient History, ed. S. Pomeroy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 138-53l; Helene Foley and Elaine Fantham, et. al, Women in the Classical World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 56-67. 1136
Cf, Ath. 13.567e-f.
1137
Anth. Pal. 13.16 (Paton, LCL). Juvenal shows more than a little contempt for female athletes - and women in general - in Satire 6.242. There has been some attempt to free Juvenal from misogyny by S. H. Braund, “Juvenal -- Misogynist or Misogamist?,” JRS 82 (1992) 71-86. 1138
Paus. 3.8.1.
1139
Xen. Ages. 9.6; Plut. Ages. 20.1.
1140
Paus. in 5.16.1 writes that the women competed with the right breast exposed, which archaeological finds compliment. The well-known statue of a running Spartan woman belonging to Cynisca’s era (about 520 BCE) fits this description; cf., J. Swaddling, The Ancient Olympic Games, 3rd ed. (London, The British Museum Press, 2004), 42-43. The tradition of women competing with the right breast exposed is also preserved in the mosaics in Piazza Armerina, Villa del Casale (4th CE). Photographs of the mosaics are available in Barbara McManus, “Index Of Images, Part III,” Vroma: A Virtual Community For Teaching And Learning Classics, www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/index3.html, accessed Feb. 6, 2012). It is interesting that women of a later time period are shown crowing one another and themselves, and one female giving a crown has her right breast exposed. 1141
Mika Kajava, “When did the Isthmian Games Return to Corinth? (Reading ‘Corinth’ 8.3.153).” C Phil. 97, no. 2 (2002): 168-78.
397 0Ermhsia/nac Dionusi/ou Kaisareu/j Tral[lian]oj o9 kai Ko[ri/nqioj] taj e9autou= qugate/raj e0xou/saj kai a[u0t]aj taj au0taj po[leitei/aj.] Trufw=san neikh/sasan Pu/qia e0pi a0gwnoqetw=n 0Antigo/nou kai Kleomaxi/da, kai 1Isqmia e0pi a0gwnoqe/tou 0Ioubenti/ou Pro/klou sta/dion kata to e9ch=j prw/th parqe/nwn. 0Hde/an neikh/sasan 1Isqmia e0pi a0gwnoqe/tou Kornhli/ou Pou/lxpou e0no/plion a3rmati, kai Ne/mea sta/dion e0pi a0gwnoqe/tou 0Antigo/nou, kai e0n Sikuw=ni e0pi a0gwnoqe/tou Menoi/ta· e0nei/ka de kai pai=daj kiqarw?douj 0Aqh/nhsi Seba/steia e0/pi a0gwnoqe/tou Noui/ou tou= Filei/no(u)· prw[th a0p 0 ai0w=]noj e0ge/neto polei=[tij] rw parqe/noj. Dionusi/an neik[h/sasan ..] e0pi a0gwnoqe/tou 0An[tig]o/[= nou] kai 0Askla/peia e0n 0Epidau/rw? th=? i9era=? e0pi a0gwn=[o=]qe/tou Neikote/lou sta/di=[on]. 0Apo/llwni Puqi/w?. Hermesianax, son of Dionysius, of Caesarea in Tralles and of Corinth, for his daughters, who also have the same citizenships. Tryphosa each time was first in the girls’ single-course race at the Pythian Games with Antigonus and Cleomachus as judges, and at the Isthmian Games with Juventius Proculus as president. Hedea won the race in armor and the chariot race at the Isthmian Games with Cornelius Pulcher as judge; she won the single-course race at the Nemean Games with Antigonus as president, likewise in Sicyon with Menoites as president. She also won the children’s lyre contest at the Augustan games in Athens with Nuvius son of Philinus as president. She was first in her age group . . . Dionysia won . . . the single-course race at the Asclepian Games at the sanctuary of Epidaurus with Nicoteles as president.1142 Female athletes such as these were not the only women crowned at the games; the Greeks were fond of crowning their poets and musicians at their agonistic festivals. 1143 In Delphi in 86 BCE, the Thebean harpist Polygonta was crowned and awarded several other honors for her services to the city.1144 I do not know of a poetess receiving a crown in the festivals, but there are certainly some famous Greek poetesses who would have
1142
Pleket, Epigraphica, 9. Translation by Naphthali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization: Volume 2, The Empire, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 368. Alternative translation in Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life, 206. 1143
Irene Ringwood Arnold discusses the importance of poetry in the games of the imperial period, “Agonistic Festivals in Italy and Sicily,” AJA (1960): 248. 1144
Pleket, Epigraphica, 6.
398 been candidates.1145 As we have seen above, Greek women poets were widely read in the first century: Sappho, Nossis, and Erinna. Sulpicia, mentioned in Martial, Epigrams 10.35 is an example of a first century Roman poet. In first century Ephesus, the priestess Claudia Trophime dedicated some lines to Hestia in a prominently placed inscription.1146 Paul’s usage of the metaphor of the crown is not strictly limited to athletic imagery, but is connected simultaneously to patronage and the concept of the ideal wise-person or teacher in popular philosophies. The games themselves in the imperial period were inextricably tied to patronage: patrons and patronesses were needed to provide oil, maintain the facilities, and preside over the games. 1147 Both the male and female athletes competed for perishable crowns of withered celery (more precisely, already perished),1148 but patronesses of the Greek East competed with one another for the imperishable crown of the reciprocated honor due them upon the completion of their liturgies. Many women in the Greek East received honors for their patronage. Phyle of Priene tells us in her inscription that she is first female stephanephorus of her city, an office that allows the wearing of the crown while the person is in service.1149 This office
1145
Sylvia Barnard, “Hellenistic Women Poets,” CJ 73, no. 3 (1978): 204-13.
1146
Inscr. Eph. 1062. Translation available in Mary Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s
Life, 9. 1147
The bond of the games with patronage is quite obvious with the infamous victories of Nero at the games; see Suet. Ner.12.3; 22.3. 1148
Oscar Broneer, “Crown,” 260; cf., Broneer, “The Apostle Paul,” 1-31.
1149
Pleket, Epigraphica, 5.
399 was bestowed on other generous patronesses and their husbands.1150 We saw above that the honorary inscriptions to Junia Theodora in Corinth, an illustrious patron living in Paul’s day, indicates that she received a golden crown and a portrait for her apotheosis in return for her services to several cities in the Lycian League. The significance of wearing a crown is the designation of leadership; the one who wears it is the pattern which others are encouraged to follow. In the fourth inscription to Junia Theodora, her heir is said to mimic her excellent qualities. “.. Se/kton 9Iou/lion 9Rwmai=on a1ndra a0gaqon o1nta kai th=? u0perballou/sh? eu0noi/a? krate/onta kai spoudh=? proj to e1nqoj h9mw=n stoixou=nta th?= a2nwqen 0Iouni/aj proj h9maj eu0noi/a,” “..Sextus Iulius, a Roman, a good man also behaving with surpassing goodwill and zeal towards our nation, imitating the devotion of Junia towards us which was mentioned above.”1151 The verb stoixe/w, which usually is used in the sense of “falling in line,” certainly also calls to mind a student following a teacher. It does not appear in its verbal form in many important philosophical writings (such as Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon - who does use it twice outside of a philosophical context - or Epictetus) or poets (Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Pindar). However, it does appear in the context of philosophy by the time of Musonius Rufus, 1152 the first century Roman Stoic who advocated teaching philosophy to women. We also see it in Sextus Empiricus, “e0n filosofi/a? men th=? tw=n filoso/fwn 1150
For a detailed discussion, see Reit van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1996), 31. 1151 1152
Lines 54-56. Text and translation from Kearsley, “Women in Public,” 206.
Musonius Rufus, with reference to following the words of Socrates, Dissertationum a Lucio digestarum reliquiae, 18b, line 48; cf., 8 line 5; Fragmenta minora 42.5.
400 stoixh/somen,” “in philosophy we will follow the philosophers.”1153 It is used in the New Testament five times as a synonym for the often used peripate/w, which appears 95 times. 1154 In Romans 4:12, Paul uses stoixe/w to refer to following Abraham, and in Gal. 5:25, it refers to the Holy Spirit. In Phil 3:17, Paul uses it to prepare for the audience’s imitation of himself. Paul uses the popular agon motif both to bolster his claims of apostleship – he has realized the self-sufficiency of the wise-person – and to encourage his audience to imitate his success.
Reading 1 Cor. 9:24-27 with Sophia Paul begins his usage of the agon motif by encouraging his audience to run as if they were the only one who would win the race: the only one in the race who will receive a crown. If Paul has in mind that the outcome of such discipline would result in selfsufficiency without following a philosophical method, this statement is an affront to the philosophical schools. However, since self-discipline is the method and self-sufficiency is the goal, Paul’s admonition for the community to practice self-discipline would be familiar and welcome to both Sophia and Fortuna. As patronesses who supported the churches and Paul himself, they may well have previously competed in the Isthmian games as children and were competing for honors and crowns as adult patronesses. As such, both Fortuna and Sophia could certainly understand in a very intimate way the contrast between struggling for a perishable and imperishable crown.
1153
Sext. Emp. Math. 11.59 (Bury, LCL).
1154
TDNT 7:667.
401 Part of growing up in a wealthy family in first century Corinth included participation in the Isthmian games. One aspect of the games included the races that won a perishable crown of celery. Another important aspect of participation was patronage of the games that could help the patroness earn an imperishable golden crown in graditude of her gifts. Before she met Paul, Sophia could participate in philosophical learning and support that and her other interests, enjoying reciprocating patronal relationships with these persons and groups according to her interests. Now, in Paul’s usage of the agon motif, Sophia again sees Paul’s claim to have realized the distinction of an ideal selfcontrolled philosopher. His language of the crown may have reminded her of her competitions in the Isthmian games as a little girl, and certainly of the competitive nature of patronage: the race to give the best benefactions to the people of Corinth. Sophia could understand in a very intimate way the contrast between struggling for a perishable and imperishable crown.
Reading 1 Cor. 9:24-27 with Fortuna Paul then applies the agon motif to himself (1 Cor. 9:26-7): his work is not aimless because he disciplines his body so he will not be disqualified and win the race. It seems that as he presents himself in contrast to his audience, Paul has actually achieved the level of self-discipline that he needs to qualify for the race and only needs to persevere. This is where Sophia and Fortuna part company. As a sympathetic reader, Sophia is not disturbed by Paul claiming the qualities of the wise-person without devoting himself to a particular school. Fortuna, however, remains unconvinced that Paul’s apostleship escorts him to the most desired outcome of moral philosophy: to be a
402 wise-person like Socrates, a person who is in complete control of their passions and able to withstand any challenge or hardship with magnanimity. In light of Paul’s apparent lack of concern for personal patronage, perhaps Fortuna can read Paul as contrasting his reward (imperishable reward from God) and her reward (the reciprocation of her patronage). In this regard, Paul’s writing is very divisive. Paul’s opponents are at least thankful for Fortuna’s benefactions: she allows them to meet in her home, provides food for the meetings, and risks her relationships with outsiders who may suspect her of supporting a foreign religion. Fortuna’s two major problems with Paul: his repeated claims concerning wisdom and the ideal wiseperson and his ingraditude are more than enough to completely alienate Fortuna.
Conclusion: Reading the agon motif with Sophia and Fortuna Sophia and Fortuna approach Paul’s usage of the agon motif with more than enough philosophical education and life experience to be able to interact with what Paul is trying to communicate. They knew what it meant to train for athletic competitions, and the meanings of self-sufficiency in different schools from participation in philosophical debates, and can appreciate the rewards of both endeavors. Furthermore, both Sophia and Fortuna could receive a crown because of their patronage to the city, whether it is the temporary crown of the stephanephorus or the permanent golden crown for her apotheosis. Paul’s plea for the church to practice self-control is appreciated by Sophia, but Fortuna cannot overcome Paul’s claim to have actually achieved the ideal quality of the wise-person without following any philosophical method.
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
In this dissertation I have reconstructed a reading of selected passages of 1 Corinthians with philosophically educated women: 1 Cor. 1-4 with an emphasis on patronage, Paul’s regulations concerning marriage and divorce in 1 Cor. 7, and finally the agon motif in 1 Cor. 9. This project is situated in Pauline studies that examine his many Hellenistic contexts that include his relationship to expressions used in other ancient writings (parallels), the ancient rhetorical and epistolary theorists, and especially popular moral philosophy. The popular schools included in this dissertation are (neo)Pythagoreanism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Middle Platonism, and all of these schools have a substantial history of including women. Furthermore, all of these schools had some connection with Corinth. In reconstructing the philosophically educated women, I have discussed other areas of ancient intellectual life that women contributed to: poetry, medicine, music, and oratory. In the other areas of intellectual life as well as in philosophy, women learned their art as a member of or someone connected to a wealthy household. Therefore, I chose to reconstruct a philosophically educated woman who was a wealthy widow who was in control of her own property and who could more easily participate in intellectual life. A wealthy widow would naturally serve as a patroness of the church, so I reviewed patronage in Corinth and argued that because the women honored for patronage
403
404 in the ancient world were more wealthy and powerful than their male counterparts, there is much at stake for Paul in the presentation of himself and his arguments. After a review of patronage in Corinth, I examined the nature of the patronal relationship between the poet Horace and his patron Macenas. I argued that as the poet’s inspiration gives him the ability to criticize his patron and patronage, Paul’s calling as apostle gives him similar privileges. This dynamic prepares us for Paul’s apparent refusal to participate in personal patronage in 1 Cor. 9. We should not imagine that wealthier members of the community would be unwilling to support him or the church because of Paul’s attitude – provided that at some point he appeals to their sympathies (need for praise or other reciprocation). So after foregrounding Sophia and Fortuna within the historical traditions of philosophically educated women and in their social status as wealthy women I move on to address how they would read 1 Corinthians.
Reading 1 Corinthians with Sophia and Fortuna I chose to read 1 Corinthians with two reconstructions of philosophically educated women: Sophia and Fortuna. Both of these women are wealthy widows and patronesses of the church, so there is much to gain or lose if Paul manages to balance his teachings with their philosophical sympathies. Sophia and Fortuna both have a broad philosophical education in the popular schools and are of the same social status. The difference between the two woman is that Sophia reads 1 Corinthians with a perspective that is sympathetic to Paul’s argument. Fortuna, however, upon reading 1 Corinthians 1-4, becomes unsympathetic to Paul’s argument and is increasingly distanced and frustrated as Paul develops his presentation of himself in contrast to his opponents. Sophia identifies herself as a follower of a divine wisdom like Paul, and is able to listen to what
405 he has to say in the rest of the epistle. While Sophia is the more sympathetic reader, she is still confused with some of Paul’s teachings and mildly annoyed at times. Similarly, Fortuna is consistently frustrated by Paul, beginning with his distinction between human and divine wisdom which culminates in his characterization of himself as a wise-person without using a method from any philosophical school. Some of Paul’s teachings are read similarly by both Sophia and Fortuna. A large portion of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to moral teachings such as lawsuits, dietary issues, usage of prostitutes, and regulations concerning marriage and divorce. Sophia and Fortuna would be equally confused that Paul prohibits divorce and remarriage, which was typically essential to the security of wealth and status. Both women can value Paul’s emphasis on self-control. Furthermore, Sophia and Fortuna may have issue with Paul’s method or be confused by the uselessness of prohibiting the use of prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:12-16) and divorce/remarriage (1 Cor. 7:1-40), if the community can be united and reasonably moral, it would reflect well on its patronesses if their friends have a high moral standard. Sophia is able to connect with precisely the concept that seals Fortuna’s alienation from him, his claim to the actualization of self-sufficiency. This self-sufficiency is best expressed in Paul’s usage of the agon motif in 1 Cor. 9:24-7. I explored two perspectives that could impact Sophia and Fortuna’s reading of the agon motif: their philosophical education concerning self-control, and their familiarity with the games. I argued that in popular philosophy, self-control is the common method to achieve self-sufficiency, and the struggle to attain this virtue is often compared to the athlete’s effort to win the crown, the agon motif. While the agon motif is rarely applied directly to women, self-control
406 and self-sufficiency are quite commonly attributed to women, so Sophia and Fortuna are well prepared to read 1 Cor. 9:24-7. Another context that prepares Sophia and Fortuna to read the agon motif is their proximity to the Isthmian games and their involvement in patronage: two fields in which these women competed for crowns. These women knew what it meant to struggle for material and philosophical rewards, and Paul’s claim to the mastery of self-control is either laudable or offensively arrogant. Despite both of their frustrations with Paul, Sophia and Fortuna both continue to support the church because of their ongoing commitment to the community.
Suggestions for Further Research This project calls for further studies because of its many limitations due to its scope and methods. I read portions of 1 Corinthians with two constructions of philosophically educated women: Sophia and Fortuna. Both were wealthy widows who were patronesses of the church, and the nature of their philosophical education is broad. These two constructs cannot possibly represent the depth of the histories of women in philosophy. There were women in the ancient world, perhaps even in Corinth, who were committed to one philosophical school and had a hostility to all other schools of thought. There were also women of lower status who had access to philosophical teachings, namely the wives and children of Cynics who idealized the life of poverty, other wandering philosophers, and those women somehow connected to tutors in wealthy households. From these variables, there are many different ways to read 1 Corinthians – there are five popular schools and even more social settings – and from these choices we can construct many different philosophically educated women and even more readings.
407 The other limitation is the text. I did not examine all of the philosophical parallels in 1 Corinthians, but I did choose issues that are most common in the histories of women in philosophy. So 1 Corinthians can be examined more broadly and read in total by Sophia and Fortuna and other philosophically educated women. Of course, 1 Corinthians is not the only Pauline epistle that has important passages that would attract the attention of philosophically educated women. By the same token, the philosophical texts written by and attributed to women can be examined thoroughly for important issues that are unique to a single text rather than concepts related to the balance of the sources. There is much to explore related to the question: how would philosophically educated women read Paul?
WORKS CITED
Bibliographic Resources and Sourcebooks Bagnell, Roger S. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt 300BC - AD 400. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Berry, Paul. Correspondence Between Paul and Seneca. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 12. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1999. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. Translated and edited by Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Gallo, I. Una nuova biografia di Pindaro (P. Oxy. 2438). Salerno: Di Giacomo, 1968. Grubbs, Judith Evans. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce, and Widowhood. New York: Routledge, 2002. Hutchings, Noël and William D. Rumsey, eds., The Collaborative Bibliography of Women in Philosophy. Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center, 1997. Kloppenborg, John S. and Richard Ascough. Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary: I Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Maureen B. Fant. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook in Translation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. Lewis, Naphthali and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Roman Civilization: Volume 2, The Empire, 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Llewelyn, S. R. ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 9 vols. Macquarie University, 1981-. Lindemann, Kate. Women Philosophers Web Site, http://www.women-philosophers.com Accessed Feb. 6, 2012. Kersey, Ethel M. Women Philosophers: A Bio-Critical Source Book. New York: Greenwood, 1989. Malherbe, Abraham. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. 408
409 ______. The Cynic Epistles. Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1977. ______. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, c1986. Monroe, Paul. Source Book of the History of Education for the Greek and Roman Period New York: Macmillan, 1932. Plant, I. M. Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome: An Anthology. Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2004. Pleket, H. W., ed. Epigraphica II. Leiden: Brill, 1964. Samama, Evelyne. Les médecins dans le monde grec: Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical. Genève: Librairie Droz, 2003. Smith, Jay E. “The New Perspective on Paul: A Select and Annotated Bibliography.” Criswell Theological Review 2, no. 2 (2005): 91-111. Snyder, Jane McIntosh. The Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989. Swanson, Dennis M. “Bibliography of works on the New Perspective on Paul.” Master’s Seminary Journal 16, no. 2 (2005): 317-24. Watson, Duane. “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles since 1975.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 3 (1995): 219-48. ______. The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2006. Vogliano, A. Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in Herculanensibus papyris servata. Berlin: Weidmann, 1928. Artwork Beck, F. A. Album of Greek Education: The Greeks at School and at Play. Sydney: Cheiron Press, 1975. Bieber, Margarete. Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art. New York: New York University Press, 1977. ______. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York, Columbia University Press, 1955. Clarke, John. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 BCAD 250. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Lullies, Reinhard. Greek Sculpture. Photos by Max Hirmer. Translated by Michael Bullock. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1957.
410 Richter, Gisela M. A. The Portraits of the Greeks: Abridged and Revised by R. R. R. Smith. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984. Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. Hellenistic Sculpture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990-2002. Stewart, Andrew F. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Inscriptions and Papyri: Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden. Berlin: Verlag, 1863-. von Arnim, H. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. vol 3. Leipzig 1903. Astin, A. E. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1967. Bagnall, Roger S. and Raffaella Cribiore, trans. and ed., with contributions by Evie Ahtaridis. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC - AD 800. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Böckh, August et al, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 49 vols. Berlin, 1825-. Cagnat, René and Toutain, J., et al., eds. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Paris: E. Leroux, 1906-. Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi. Compiled by M. Gigante. Naples: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi, 1979. Chilton, C. W. Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Fragments. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Cribiore, Raffaella, ed. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Diels, H. and W. Krantz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1964. Dittenberger, W., ed. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Edwards, I. E. S. Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. 19 vols. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Engelmann, H., D. Knibbe, and N. D. R. Merkelbach, eds. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Bonn, 1980. Fouilles de Delphes, École française d’Athène. Edited by Paris: Fontemoing, 1905. Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. New York: Dutton, 1968.
. 3 vols.
411 Gummerus, Herman. Der Ärztestand im Römischen Reiche nach den Inschriften. Helsinki: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1992. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-. Jacoby, E. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923. Kampen, Natalie. Image and Status: Women Working in Ostia. Berlin: Mann, 1981. Kent, John Harvey. Corinth 8.3: The Inscriptions, 1926-1950. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966. ______. “The Inscriptions, 1926-1950.” Corinth 8, no. 3. The Inscriptions, 1926-1950 (1966): iii-vi+1-25. Korpela, Jukka. Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom: eine sozialgeschichte Untersuchung. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Llewelyn, S. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. 9 vols. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1981-. Oates, John F., Roger S. Bagnall, Sarah J. Clackson, Alexandra A. O’Brien, Joshua D. Sosin, Terry G. Wilfong, and Klaas A. Worp, Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets. Available online at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html. Accessed Nov. 30, 2011. Pauly, August Friedrich. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Neue Bearbeitung. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen hrsg. von Georg Wissowa. Stüttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894-1963. Plant, I. M. Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome. London: Equinox, 2001. Ramelli, Ilaria and David Konstan. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Rowlandson, J. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. de Senancour, Étienne Pivert. Libres méditations. 3rd ed. Introduction et commentaire par Béatrice Le Gall. Textes littéraires français 172. Genève: Droz 1970. Spengel, Leonardus. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1854-6; reprint Frankfurt: Minerva, 1966. Sprague, Rosamond Kent, ed. The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation by Several Hands of the Fragments in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Edited by DielsKranz, With a new Edition of Antiphon and Euthydemus. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972. Schmidt, M. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmente. Leipzig: Teubner, 1854; reprint, Amsteradm: Hakkert, 1964.
412 Tracy, Stephen V. Pericles: A Sourcebook and Reader. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. van der Eijk, P. J. Diocles of Carystus: A Collection of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. vol. 1. Studies in Ancient Medicine 22. Leiden: Brill, 2000. van Straaten, Modestus. Panaetti Rhodii Fragmenta. Leiden: Brill, 1962. The Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum: Life and Afterlife of a Sculpture Collection. Edited by Carol C. Mattusch and Henry Lie. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005. Vogliano. Il nuovo Alceo, da un papiro di Oxyrhynchus. Roma Istituto grafico tiberino, 1952. Vogliano, A. et al., eds. Papiri della R. Università di Milano. 7 vols. Milan: Università di Milano, 1937-81. Vogliano, A. Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in Herculanensibus papyris servata. Berlin, 1928. Vogliano, A. Il nuovo Alceo, da un papiro di Oxyrhynchus. Roma Istituto grafico tiberino, 1952.
Manuale di papirologia ercolanese. Compiled by M. Capasso. Testi e Studi 3. Lecce: Università degli Studi di Lecce, Dipartmento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale, 1991. Ancient Sources Aelian. On Animals. Translated by A. F. Scholfield. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958-1959. Aelian. Historical Miscellany. Translated by Nigel G. Wilson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus: The Letters. Translated and edited by Allen R. Benner and Francis H. Fobes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. Andronikos, M. “Vergina.” Ergon (1990): 80-88. Appian. Roman History. Translated by Horace White. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912-1913. Aristides. The Complete Works. Translated by Charles A. Behr. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Aristophanes. Works. Edited and translated by Jeffery Henderson. Loeb Classical Library. 6 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936-1998.
413 Aristotle. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Edited by Valentin Rose. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubneri, 1886. Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle, vol 12, Selected Fragments. Edited by William David Ross. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1952. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists. Translated by Olson S. Douglas. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007-2011. ______. The Deipnosophists or, Banquet of the Learned of Athenaeus. Translated by C. D. Yonge. 3 vols. London: H.G. Bohn, 1853-1854. Aulus Gellius. Attic Nights. Edited and translated by J. C. Rolfe. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Bacchylides. Bacchylides. Translated by David A. Cambell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Bickermann, E. J and J. Sykutris. Speusippus Breif an König Philipp. Verhandlung der süchsischen Akademie der Wussenschaften 80.3. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1928. Cassius Dio. Works. Translation by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library. 9 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-1927. Catling, H. W. “Archaeology in Greece, 1983-84.” Archaeological Reports 30 (1983 1984): 3-70. Catullus, Gaius Valerius. Works. Edited and Translated by Francis Warre Cornish and J. P. Postgate, J., et al. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. Censorinus. The Birthday Book. Translated by Holt. N. Parker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Censorinus. De die natali. Edited by William, Maude. New York, Cambridge Encyclopedia Co., 1900. Cicero. Brutus. Orator. Translated by G. Hendrickson and H. M. Hubbel. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. ______. On Duties. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914. ______. Letters to Atticus. Translated by D. R. Shackelton Bailey. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. ______. On the Nature of the Gods. Academics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. ______. On Old Oge. On Friendship. On Divination. Translated by W. A. Falconer. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923.
414 ______. On the Republic. On the Laws. Translated by Clinton W. Keys. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. Clement of Alexandria. In vol. 2 of the Nicene and Post-Nichene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1866-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Cleomedes. Cleomedes’ Lectures on Astronomy. A Translation of The Heavens with an Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. University of California Press, 2004. Cornutus. Cornutus: A Cursory Examination of the Traditions of Greek Theology (Theologiae Graecae Compendium), with Text, Translation, and Commentary. Edited and translated by David Armstrong, Pamela Gordon, Loveday Alexander and L. Michael White. New York: Routledge, Forthcoming. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. 12 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Edited and translated by R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Diogenes of Oenoanda. Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Fragments. Edited and translated by C. W. Chilton. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Epicurus. Epicurea. Edited by Hermannus Usener. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Reprint Library, 1887. Available online at http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/epicurea.html#l14. Accessed Feb 6, 2012. Epictetus. Discourses. The Encheiridion. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925-1928. Epicurus. Epicurea, edidit Hermannus Usener. Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri, 1887. Epicurus: The Extant Remains. Edited by Cyril Bailey. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1926. Erler, M. “Epikur, Die Schule Epikurs, Lukrez.” In Die Philosophie der Antike. vol. 4. Edited by H. Flashar, 29-430. Basel: Verlag, 1994. Eunapius. Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. New York: Putnam, 1921. Eusebius of Caesarea. The Eccleastical History. Edited and translated by Kirsopp Lake and John Oulton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Eusebius of Caesarea. Preparation for the Gospel. Translated by E. H. Gifford. Oxford : Clarendon University Press, 1903.
415 Eustathius. Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem. Edited and translated by J. Stallbaum. Cambridge Library Collection Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Eutathius. Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam. Edited and translated by J. G. Stallbaum. 2 vols. Cambridge Library Collection Classics. Lipsiae: Weigel, 1827-1830. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather and Charles L. Sherman, et al. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933-1950. Foraboschi, D., ed. L’Archivio di Kronion. Milan: Università di Milano, 1971. Galen. Quod optimus medicus sit quoque philosophus. Edited by E. Wenkebach, “Der hippokratische Arzt als das Ideal Galens.” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und Medizin 3, no 4 (1933): 170-175. Galen. On the Natural Faculties. Edited and translated by A. J. Brock. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916. Gellius. Attic Nights. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Gerber, Douglas E. Greek Elegiac Poetry. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page, eds. The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams. 2 vols. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page, eds. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gregory of Nazianzus. Julian the Emperor, Containing Gregory Nazianzen’s two Invectives and Libanius’ Monody with Julian’s Extant Theosophical Works. Compiled and translated by C. W. King. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1888. Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. Pythagoras: Sourcebook and Library. Contains all Available Material about Pythagoras and Complete Collection of Writings of his Disciples. First Rehabilitation of Pythagoreanism for 2400 Years Since the Tragic Burning of the House in which his School was Assembled in Crotona, about 500 B.C. Yonkers, N.Y.: Platonist Press 1920. Hephaestion. On Meter. Translated by J. M. van Ophuijsen. New York: Brill, 1987. Heraclitus. Heraclitus: Homeric Problems. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell and David Konstan. Writings from the Greco-Roman World 14. Atlanta: SBL, 2005.
416 Herodotus. The Persian Wars. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920-24. Hesychii Alexandrini. Lexicon: A-O. Edited by K. Latte. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953, 1956. Hippolytus. Refutation of all Heresies. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. Horace. The Satires, Epistles, Ars Poetica. Translated and edited by Edward Wickham. New York: Oxford University Press, 1903. Iamblichus. Iamblichi De vita Pythagorica liber. Edited by Ludwig Deubner and Ulrich Klein Stüttgart: Teubner, 1975. Iamblichus. De Vita Pythagorica. Translated by John Dillon. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. John of Damascus. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1868. John of Damascus. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. vol. 5. Edited by P. B. Kotter. Patristische Texte und Studien 29. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988. Julius Pollux. Onomastikon. Edited and translated by Immanuel Bekker. Berolini: Prostat in Libraria Friderici Nicolai, 1846. Justin Martyr. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. Juvenal. Satires. Translated by G. G. Ramsay. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Lefkowitz, Mary. “Scolium on Pindar.” The American Journal of Philology 106, no. 3 (1985): 269-82. Livy. History of Rome. Translated by B. O. Foster and Frank Gardner, et al. 14 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919-1959. Lucian of Samasota. Works. Edited and translated by A. M. Harmon and K. Kilburn, et al. 8 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19131967. Maximus of Tyre. The Philosophical Orations. Translated by M. B. Trapp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Martial. Epigrams. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
417 Musonius Rufus. Yale Classical Studies. vol. 10. Translated by Cora E. Lutz. Edited by Alfred R. Bellinger. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Livy. History of Rome. Translated by B. O. Foster and Evan T. Sage. 14 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919-1959. Ovid. Ars amatoria. Translated and edited by J. H. Mozley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929. Parthenius. Parthenius. Translated by J. L. Lightfoot. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Pausanias. Description of Greece. 5 vols. Edited and translated by W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod, et al. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918-1935. Philo. The Works of Philo Judaeus. Translated by C. D. Yonge. London: H. G. Bohn, 1854-55. Velleius Paterculus. Compendium of Roman History. Translated by F. W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Philodemus. Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. Translated and edited by David Konstan, Diskin Clay, and Clarence E Glad. Atlanta: SBL, 1998. Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, the Epistles of Apollonius, and the Treatise of Eusebius. Translation by F. C. Conybeare. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Photius. Plotini opera. Edited by P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1951-1973. Pindar. Olympian Odes and Pythian Odes. Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Plato. Lysis, Symposium, and Gorgias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Plato. Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930-1935. Plotinus. Plotinus. Translated by A. H. Armstrong and Paul Henry. Loeb Classical Library. London, W. Heinemann, 1966-1988. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham and W. H. S. Jones. 10. vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Plutarch. Lives. Edited and translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-1936. Plutarch. Plutarch’s Quotations. Compiled by William C. Helmbold and Edward N. O’Neil. Baltimore: American Philological Association, 1959.
418 Polybius. Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. Translated by H. Rackham and W. H. S. Jones. 10. vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923-1927. Porphory. Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta. 2nd ed. Edited by A. Nauck. Leipzig: Teubner, 1886. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1963. Porphory. Plotini opera, vol. 1. Edited by P. Henry and H. R. Schwyzer. Leiden: Brill, 1951. Pseudo-Ovid. The Songs of Sappho. Translated by Marion Mills Miller and David Moore Robinson. New York: Frank-Maurice, 1925. Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Translated by Donald A. Russell. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Scarborough, John and Vivian Nutton. “The Preface of Discorides’ Materia Medica: Introducion, Translation, and Commentary.” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia 4 (1982): 187-227. Seneca. Fragments. Edited by Friedrich G. Haase. Leipzig: Teubner, 1897. Seneca. Works. Translated by Michael Heseltine, W. H. D. Rouse, Richard Gummere et al. 13 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19132004. Simplicius. On Epictetus’ “Handbook 27-33.” Translated by Tad Brennan and Charles Brittain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002. Spengel, L. Rhetores Graeci. vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1854. Strabo. Geography. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. 8 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917-1932. Tatian. Address to the Greeks. Translated by J. E. Ryland. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. Thesleff, Holger. The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Abo, Abo Akademi, 1965. Theodoret. Therapeutike, in Nicene and Post-Nichene Fathers. Series 2, vol. 3. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1866-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Theophilus of Antioch. Theophilus to Autolycus, in Nicene and Post-Nichene Fathers. Series 2, vol. 2. Translated by Marcus Dods. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1866-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by C. F. Smith. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917-1932.
419 Rupprecht, Hans-Albert, ed. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Äegypten. 20 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1913-2001. Scholiast. Scholia metrica vetera in Pindari Carmina. Leipzig: Teubner, 1989. Scholiast. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam. 2 vols. W. Dindorff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1855. Reprint, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1962. Scholiast. Scholia in Homeri Odysseae a 1-309 Auctiora et Emendatiora. Edited by A. Ludwich. Königsberg: Hartung, 1888-1890. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Statius. Silvae. Translated by D. R. Shackleton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1928. Tacitus. Annals. Translated by John Jackson. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Tacitus. Dialogus. Agricola. Germania. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1925. Tatian. Address to the Greeks. Translated by J. E. Ryland. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1868. Themistius. The Private Orations of Themistius. Translated, annotated, and introduced by Robert J. Penella. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Valerius Maximus. Memorable Sayings and Doings. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Baily. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Xenophon. Works. Translated and edited by Brownson, Carleton Lewis, Marchant, E. C. et al. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19141998. Modern Sources Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985. Adam, J. “Epicurus and Erotion.” The Classical Review 7, no. 7 (1893): 303-4. Adcock, F. E. “Women in Roman Life and Letters.” Greece & Rome 14, no. 40 (1945): 1-11. Agrell, Goran. Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in the Old Testament, Intertestamental and Early Rabbinic Writings. Lund: Verbum Hakan Ohlssons, 1976. Aland, Kurt. “The Corpus Hellenisticum.” New Testament Studies 2 (1955-6): 217-21.
420 Alexander, A. B. D. A Short History of Philosophy. Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1908. Alexander, Loveday. “IPSE DIXIT: Citation of Authority in Paul and Hellenistic Schools.” In Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide, edited by Troels Engberg-Pederson, 103-27. Louisville: Westminster, 2001. Algra, Keimpe and M. H Koenen. Lucretius and his Intellectual Background: Proceedings of the Colloquium, Amsterdam, 26-28 June 1996. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1997. Allen, Christine Garside. “Plato on Women.” Feminist Studies 2, no. 2/3 (1975): 131-8. Allen, Prudence. The Concept of Woman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Allen, Walter, Jr. and Phillip H. Delacy. “The Patrons of Philodemus.” Classical Philology 34, no. 1 (1939): 59-65. Almqvist, Helge. Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum. Novi Testamenti. Uppsala: Appelbergs, 1946. Alpern, Henry. The March of Philosophy. New York: Dial, 1933. Amundsen, Darrell W. “The Liability of the Physician in Roman Law.” In International Symposium on Society, Medicine, and the Law, edited by H. Karplus, 17-31. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973. Anderson, R. Dean, Jr. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 18. Edited by Tj. Baarda, A. van der Kooij and A. S. van der Woude. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Anderson, Graham. “Putting Pressure on Plutarch: Philostratus Epistle 73.” Classical Philology 72, no. 1 (1977): 43-45. Andrews, Mary E. Review of Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti by Helge Almqvist. Journal of Biblical Literature 66, no. 3 (1947): 343. Andronicos, Manolis. Verghina, the Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1984. Arjava, Antti. Women and Law in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1996. Arlandson, James Malcolm. Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Arnold, Irene Ringwood. “Agonistic Festivals in Italy and Sicily.” American Journal of Archaeology (1960): 245-51. Arrighetti, G. Epicuro Opere. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1960.
421 Arthur, Marylin B. “The Tortoise and the Mirror: Erinna PSI 1090.” Classical World 74, no. 2, Symbolism in Greek Poetry (1980): 53-65. Arkins, B. “Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love, and Marriage.” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 18, no. 2 (1984): 141-143. Asmis, Elizabeth. “Epicurean Economics,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn S. Holland, 133-76. Novum Testamentum Supplement 111. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ______. “The Stoics on Women.” In Ancient Philosophy and Feminism, edited by J. Ward, 68–94. New York: Routledge, 1996. Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 2.161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Aune, David E. “De esu carnium orationes I and II (Moralia 993a-999b).” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, edited by Hans Dieter Betz, 301317. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C.H. Talbert’s What Is a Gospel?.” In Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. vol 2. Edited by David Wenham and R. T. France, 9-60. Sheffield: JSNT, 1981. ______. Review of Aelius Aristides and the New Testament by P. W. Van Der Horst. Journal of Biblical Literature 99, no. 4 (1980): 641-644. ______. Review of Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature by William C. Grese, Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 2 (1983): 349-350. ______. “Septem Sapientium Convivium,” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament. Edited by Hans D. Betz, 51-105. Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Austin, Michel. The Hellenistic World form Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Avontis, Ivars. “Training in Frugality in Epicurus and Seneca.” Phoenix 31, no. 3 (1977): 214-17. Bablitz, Leanne E. Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom. New York: Routledge, 2007. Bailey, Cyril. The Greek Atomists and Epicurus. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1928. Barker, A. Greek Musical Writings, vol. 2: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
422 Baker, Robert J. “Maecenas and Horace ‘Satires 2.8.’” Classical Journal 83, no. 3 (1988): 212-33. Balch, David L. “1 Cor 7:32-35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage Anxiety, and Distraction.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 3 (1983): 429-439. ______. “Household Ethical Codes in Peripatetic, Neopythagorean, and Early Christian Literature.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 11 (1977): 397-104. ______. and Carolyn Osiek. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ______. “Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. vol. 2.26.1. Edited by Temporini, Hildegard and Wolfgang Haase, 380-411. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1991. ______. “Rich Pompeiian Houses, Shops for Rent, and the Huge Apartment Building in Herculaneum as Typical Spaces for Pauline House Churches.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27, no. 1 (2004): 27-46. Baily, Cyril. Epicurus: The Extant Remains. Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press, 1926. Baldry, H. C. “Zeno’s Ideal State.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 79 (1959): 3-15. Ballif, Michelle and Michael G. Moran, eds., Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. West Port: Preager, 2005. Barclay, John M. G. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 363-66. Barclay, J. M. G. “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 49-74 Barnard, Sylvia. “Hellenistic Women Poets.” Classical Journal 73, no. 3 (1978): 204-13. Barré, Michael L. “To Marry or to Burn: pyrousthai in I Cor 7:9.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 36 no. 2 (1974): 193-202. Barrett, Anthony. Livia: The First Lady of Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper, 1957. Barringer, Judith M. “The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes.” Hesperia 74, no. 2 (2005): 211-241. Bartchy, Scott. MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 11. Missoula: Scholars’ Press, 1973.
423 Bartelink, G. J. M. Review of Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paranetische Parallelen. Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti by Hans D. Betz. Mnemosyne 4th ser. 16, no. 2 (1963): 190-1. Barth, E. M. Women Philosophers: A Bibliography of Books Through 1990. Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center, 1992. Bartling, Walter J. “Sexuality, Marriage, and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 6:12-7:16.” Concordia Theological Monthly 39, no. 6 (1968): 355-366 Bassler, Jouette M. “1 Corinthians.” The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. London Ringe. Westminster: John Knox, 1992. Bauman, Richard A. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1992. Baur, F. C. “Seneca und Paulus, Das Verhaltnis des Stoicismus zum Christentum nach den Schriften Seneca.” Zeitschrift für wissenschafliche Theologie 1 (1858): 161246, 441-70. Beard, Mary R. “The Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion.” In Literacy in the Greco-Roman World, edited by Mary Beard et al, 35-58. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1991. ______. Woman as Force in History: A Study in Traditions and Realities. New York: Macmillan, 1946. Bearslee, William. First Corinthians: A Commentary for Today. St. Louis: Chalice, 1994. Beattie, Gillian. Women and Marriage in Paul and his Early Interpreters. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 296. Edited by Mark Goodadre. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Beck, F. A. “The Schooling of Girls in Ancient Greece,” Classicum. Joint Bulletin of the Classical Association of New South Wales and of the Latin Teachers Association of New South Wales 9 (1978): 1-9. Beck, William F. “1 Corinthians 7:36-38.” Concordia Theological Monthly, 25 no. 5 (1954): 370-372. Bellemore, Jane. “The Dating of Seneca’s Ad Marciam De Consolatione.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 42, no.1. (1992): 219-34. Benoit, Pierre. “Sénèque et Saint Paul.” Revue biblique (1946): 7-35. Bergmann, Bettina and Christine Kondoleon. The Art of Ancient Spectacle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Bernstein, Francis. “Pompeian Women.” In The World of Pompeii, edited by John J. Dobbins and Pedar W. Foss, 526-37. London: Routledge, 2007.
424 Berry, D. H. and Andrew Erskine. Form and Function in Roman Oratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Berry, Edmund G. “The De Liberis Educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63 (1958): 387-399. Berry, Paul. The Encounter Between Seneca and Christianity. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2002. Berger, Klaus and Carsten Colpe, Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Neuen Testament. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Best, Edward E., Jr. “Cicero, Livy and Educated Roman Women.” Classical Journal 65, no. 5 (1970): 199-204. Betensky, Aya. “Lucretius and Love.” Classical World 73, no. 5 (1980): 291-299. Betz, Hans D. “Christianity as Religion: Paul’s Attempt at Definition in Romans.” The Journal of Religion 71, no. 3 (1991): 315-44. ______. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner Apologie 2 Korinther 10-13. Tübingen: Mohr, 1972. ______. “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (o e2sw a1nqrwpoj) in the Anthropology of Paul.” New Testament Studies 46, no. 3 (2000): 315-41. ______. and Edgar W. Smith, Jr. “Contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: I: Plutarch, de e apud delphos.” Novum Testamentum 13, no. 3 (1971): 217-35. ______. “ The Delphic Maxim ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΑΥΤΟΝ in Hermetic Interpretation.” Harvard Theological Review 63, no. 4 (1970): 465-84. ______. “The Divine Human Being.” Harvard Theological Review 78, no. 3/4 (1985): 243-52. ______. “The Delphic Maxim ‘Know Yourself’ in the Greek Magical Papyri.” History of Religions 21, no. 2 (1981): 156-71. ______. “De Fraterno Amore.” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, edited by Hans D. Betz, 231-63. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ______. “Lukian von Samosata und das Christentum.” Novum Testamentum 3, no. 3 (1959): 226-37. ______. Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paranetische Parallelen. Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1961. Bicknell, P. J. “Sokrates’ Mistress Xanthippe.” Apeiron 8 (1974): 1-5.
425 Bliquez, Lawrence J. “A Note on the Didymus Papyrus XII.35.” Classical Journal 67, no. 4 (1972): 356. Bloomer, W. Martin. “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education.” Classical Antiquity 16, no. 1 (1997): 57-78. Blundell, Sue. Women in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Harvard, 1995. Boas, George. “Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato.” Philosophical Review 57, no. 5 (1948): 439-57. Boatwright, Mary T. “The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century A.C.” American Journal of Philology 112, no. 4 (1991): 513-540. Boehm, F. “De symbolis pythagoreis.” PhD diss., Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Berlin, 1905. ______.”Elementary and Secondary Education in the Roman Empire.” Florilegium 1 (1979): 1-14. ______. “Litterator.” Hermes 109, no. 3 (1981): 371-378. Bonhöffer, A. Epiktet und das Neue Testament. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911. Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. London: Methuen, 1977. Bookidis, Nancy, Julie Hansen, Lynn Snyder, and Paul Goldberg, “Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth,” Hesperia 68, no. 1 (1999): 1-54. Bookidis, Nancy. “Religion in Corinth: 146 B.C.E to 100 C.E.” In Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Harvard Theological Studies 53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). ______. “The Sanctuaries of Corinth.” Corinth 20: Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996 (2003): 247-259. ______. and Ronald S. Stroud, “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture.” Corinth 18, no. 3, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture (1997): iii-v+vii+ix-xxiii+xxv+1-11+13-17+1951+53-83+85-151+153-301+303-391+393-421+423-481+483-497+499505+507-510. Booth, A. D. “Douris’ Cup and the Stages of Schooling in Classical Athens.” Echos du Monde Classique 29 (1985) 274-80. Borimir, Jordan. “Isthmian Amusements.” Classics Ireland 8 (2001): 32-67. Boring, Eugene M., Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe. Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament. Nashville: Abington, 1995.
426 Bosnakis, D. “Zwei Dichterinnen aus Kos: Ein neues inschriftliches Zeugnis über das öffentliche Auftreten von Frauen.” In The Hellenistic Polis of Kos: State, Economy and Culture, edited by K. Höhgmmar, 99-108. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2004. Boston, Linda. “A Womanist Reflection on 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.” Journal of Women and Religion 9-10 (1990-1991): 81-89. Bower, E. W. “Some Technical Terms in Roman Education.” Hermes 89, no. 4 (1961): 462-477. Bowersock, G. W. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Bowditch, Phebe Lowell. Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage. Berkely: University of California Press, 2001. Bowman, Laurel. “The ‘Women’s Tradition’ in Greek Poetry.” Phoenix 58, no. 1/2 (2004): 1-27. Bradley, K. R. “Remarriage and the Structure of the Upper Class Roman Family.” In Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson, 7993. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1991. Braginton, M. V. “Exile under the Roman Emperors.” Classical Journal 39, no. 7 (1944): 391-407. Brändl, Martin. Der Agon bei Paulus: Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik. Tübingen: Möhr Siebeck, 2006. Braund, S. H. “Juvenal -- Misogynist or Misogamist?” Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992): 71-86. Braxton, Brad Ronnell. “The Role of Ethnicity in the Social Location of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24.” In Yet with a Steady Beat: The African-American Struggle for Recognition in the Episcopal Church, edited by Harold T. Lewis, 19-32. Leiden: Brill, 2003. van Bremen, Riet. The Limits of Participation: Women and Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996. Brenk, Frederick E. “Plutarch’s Erotikos: The Drag Down Pulled Up.” In Relighting the Souls: Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, edited by Frederick E. Brenk, 1327. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998. Brennan, T. C. “The Poets Julia Balbilla and Damo at the Colossus of Memnon.” Classical World 91 (1997): 215-34. Branham, R. Bracht and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
427 Bréhier, Émile. Histoire de la Philosophie. L’Antiquite et le Moyen Age. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960. van Bremen, Reit. “Images of Women and Antiquity.” In Women and Wealth, edited by Averil Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt, 223-42. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983. Broneer, Oscar. “The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games.” Biblical Archaeologist 25, no. 1 (1962): 1-31. ______. “Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis.” Hesperia 10, no. 4 (1941), 388-390. ______. “Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora.” Hesperia 11, no. 2 (1942): 128-161. ______. “Investigations at Corinth, 1946-1947.” Hesperia 16, no. 4 (1947): 233-247. ______. “The Isthmian Victory Crown.” American Journal of Archaeology 66, no. 3 (1962): 259-63. ______. “Paul and the Pagan Cults at Isthmia.” The Harvard Theological Review 64, no. 2/3 (1971): 169-187. ______. “Paul’s Missionary Work in Greece.” Biblical Archaeologist 14, no. 4 (1951): 77-96. ______. “Twenty-Five Years Ago: Cults at St. Paul’s Corinth.” Biblical Archaeologist 39, no. 4 (1976): 158-159. Brooten, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. ______. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Brophy, Robert and Mary Brophy. “Deaths in the Pan-Hellenic Games II: All Combative Sports.” American Journal of Philology 106, no. 2 (1985): 171-198. Brown, Eric. “Epicurus on the Value of Friendship (“Sententia Vaticana” 23).” Classical Philology 97, no. 1 (2002): 68-80. Brownlee, Ann Blair. “Attic Black Figure from Corinth: III.” Hesperia 64, no. 3 (1995): 337-382. Brunt, P. A. “Stoicism and the Principate.” Papers of the British School at Rome 43 (1975): 7-35. Bryne, Brendan. Romans. Edited by Daniel Harrington. Sacred pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999. Buckland, W. W. A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.
428 Bultmann, Rudolf. Der stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Göttingen: Vanderhoek, 1910. ______. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Edited by E. Dinkler. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1976. Burket, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1972. Burnstein, S. M. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Cleopatra VII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Burton, Joan. “Women’s Commensality in the Ancient Greek World.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser. 45, no. 2 (1998): 143-16. Butrica, James L. “Some Myths and Anomalies in the Study.” In Same-sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, edited by Beert C. Verstraete and Vernon Provencal, 209-70. Binghampton: Harrington Park Press 2005. Butts, James. “The ‘Progymnasmata’ of Theon.” PhD diss., Claremont, CA, 1986. Byron, John. “Slaves and Freed Persons: Self-made Success and Social Climbing in the Corinthian Congregation.” Jian Dao, no 29 (2008): 91-107. Byron, John. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditiohistorical and Exegetical Examination. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Cairns, Douglas L. “‘Off with her AIDWS’: Herodotus 1.8.3-4.” Classical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (1996): 78-83. Cameron, Averil and Alan Cameron. “Erinna’s Distaff.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 19, no. 2 (1969): 285-88. Comeron, Ron and Merrill P. Miller. “Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians.” In Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians, edited by Ron Comeron and Merrill P. Miller, 245-302. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Campbell, Archibald. Horace: A New Interpretation. London: Methuen, 1924. Campbell, Joan Cecelia. Phoebe: Patron and Emissary. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2009. Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Translated by Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Caragounis, Chrys C. “‘Fornication’ and ‘concession:’ Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 543-59. Louvain: Leuven University Press: Peeters, 1996. ______. “What did Paul Mean? The Debate on 1 Cor. 7:1-7.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 82, no. 1 (2006): 189-199.
429 Carney, Elizabeth Donnelly. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. Castner, Catherine J. “Difficulties in Identifying Roman Epicureans: Orata in Cicero De Fin. 2.22.70.” Classical Journal 81, no. 2 (1986): 138-147. Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974. Cervin, Richard S. “Does kephalē mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature: A Rebuttal.” Trinity Journal, n.s. 10, no. 1 (1989): 85-112. Chilton, C. W. “Did Epicurus Approve of Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119.” Phronesis 5 (1960): 71-4. ______. “The Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” American Journal of Archaeology 67, no. 3 (1963): 285-6. Chilver, G.E.R. and G. B. Townend. An Historical Commentary on Tacitus Histories IV and V. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1985. Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 75. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ______. “Patronage in Roman Corinth.” In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, edited by Richard Horsley, 104-126. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Churchill, L. J., P. R. Brown, and J. E. Jeffrey, eds. Women Writing Latin: From Roman Antiquity to Early Modern Europe. New York: Routledge, 2002. Ciampa, Roy. “Revisiting the Euphemisim in 1 Corinthians 7.1.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31, no. 3 (2009): 325-338. ______. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Clark, Elizabeth A. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Clark, Gillian. “Roman Women.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser. 28, no. 2, Jubilee Year (1981): 193-212. Clark, Stephen R. L. “Ancient Philosophy.” In The Oxford History of Western Philosophy, edited by Anthony Kenny, 1-54. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. New York: Brill, 1993. ______. “Another Erasrtus Inscription.” Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991): 146-51.
430 ______. Serve the Community of the Church: Chrisitans as Leaders and Ministers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Clarke, G.W. ‘Seneca the Younger under Caligula.’ Latomus 24 (1965): 62-69. ______. Review of A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe. The Classical Review, n.s. 38, no. 2 (1988): 429-430. Clarke, M. L. “Poets and Patrons at Rome.” Greece and Rome, 2nd ser. 51, no. 1 (1978): 46-54. Clay, Diskin. “An Epicurean Interpretation of Dreams.” American Journal of Philology 101, no. 3 (1980): 342-365. ______. et al, eds. Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. Texts and Translations GrecoRoman Series 43. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Clayman, Dee Lesser. “The Meaning of Corinna’s Veroi=a.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 28, no. 2 (1978): 396-7. Cohic, Lynn H. Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. ______. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Coiner, Harry G. “Those Divorce and Remarriage Passages.” Concordia Theological Monthly, 39 no. 6 (1968): 367-384. Cole, S. “Could Greek women read and write?” In Reflections of Women in Antiquity, edited by Helene P. Foley, 219-45. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1981. Collins, Derek. Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. Collegeville: Order of St. Benedict, 1999. ______. Divorce in the New Testament. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992. Collins, Susan D. and Devin Stauffer. “The Challenge of Plato’s ‘Menexenus.’” Review of Politics 61, no. 1 (1999): 85-115. Commager, Steele. “The Function of Wine in Horace’s Odes.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 88 (1957): 68-80. Connelly, Joan Brenton. Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton: University Press, 2007.
431 Cook, Albert. “Dialectic, Irony, and Myth in Plato’s Phaedrus.” American Journal of Philology 106, no. 4 (1985): 427-441. Cook, John Granger. Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ______. Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians from Claudius to Hadrian. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 261. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Cooper, Kate. The Fall of the Roman Household. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cope, L. “1 Cor 11.2-16: One Step Further.” Journal Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 43536. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome. New Haven: Westminster, 1955. Corbier, Mireille. “Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies.” In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson, 47-78. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Cornish, Marcia. “Pauline Theology and Stoic Philosophy: An Historical Study.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47, no. 1 (1979): 1-21. ______. “Stoicism and the New Testament: An Essay in Historiography,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. vol. 2.26.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1982. ______. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Corrington, Gail P. The “Headless Woman:” Paul and the Language of the Body in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 18, no. 3 (1991): 223-231. Cotter, Wendy. “Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional?” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 4 (1994): 350-372. Courtney, E. “Horace and the Pest.” Classical Journal (1994): 1-8. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Commentary on Romans 12-13. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965. Crook, J. A. et al., eds. Cambridge Ancient History 7.2. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ______. Roman Life and Law. New York: Cornell University Press, 1967. Croom, Alexandra T. Roman Clothing and Fashion. Stroud: Tempus Publishers, 2010.
432 Crowther, Nigel B. “Second-Place Finishes and Lower in Greek Athletics (Including the Pentathlon).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Epigrapik 90 (1992): 97-102. ______. “Slaves and Greek Athletics.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica n.s. 40, no. 1 (1992): 35-42. Crüsemann, Marlene. “Irredeemably Hostile to Women: Anti-Jewish Elements in the Exegesis of the Dispute about Women’s Right to Speak (1 Cor. 14.34-35).” Translated by Brian McNeil. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79 (2000): 19-36. Cunningham, I. C. “Herodas 6 and 7.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 14, no. 1 (1964): 32-5. Dalzell, A. “Maecenas and the Poets.” Phoenix 10, no. 4 (1956): 151-62. Damon, Cynthia. “Greek Parasites and Roman Patronage.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97. (1995): 181-195. ______. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. Dancy, Russell M. “On A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. 1.” Review of A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe. Hypatia 1, no. 1 (1986): 160-71. Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982. Danylak, Barry N. “Tiberius Claudius Dinippus and the Food Shortages in Corinth.” Tyndale Bulletin 59 no. 2 (2008): 231-270. D’Ambra, Eve. Roman Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Das, Andrew A. Paul and the Jews. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. ______. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Daux, G. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 46 (1922): 439-66. Davenport, Guy. “A Private Talk among Friends.” Grand Street 53, Fetishes (1995): 5358. Dawes, Gregory W. “‘But if you can Gain your Freedom’ (1 Corinthians 7:17-24).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 4 (1990): 681-697. Dean, L. R. “Latin Inscriptions from Corinth.” American Journal of Archaeology 22, no. 2 (1918): 189-197. ______. “Latin Inscriptions from Corinth II.” American Journal of Archaeology 23, no. 2 (1919): 163-74.
433 Deissmann, Adolf. Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums. Marburg: Elwert, 1895. ______. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Tübingen: Mohr, 1923. ______. Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the Hisory of Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primative Christianity. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1901. ______. Light from the ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1911. Deissner, Kurt. Paulus und Seneca. Edited by D. A. Schlatter and D. W. Lütgert. Fördung christlicher Theologie 21. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1917. Delatte, Armand. Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne. Paris: Champion, 1915. Deming, Will. “A Diatribe Pattern in 1 Cor 7:21-22: A New Perspective on Paul’s Directions to Slaves.” Novum testamentum 37, no. 2 (1995): 130-137. ______. Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ______. “The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 2 (1996): 289-312. Demos, Raphael. “Paradoxes in Plato’s Doctrine of the Ideal State.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 7, no. 3/4 (1957): 164-174. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Religious Hair.” Man, n.s. 8, no. 1 (1973): 100-103. De Silva, David. “Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament.” Ashland Theological Journal 31 (1999): 32-84. Desmond, William D. Cynics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. DeWitt, Norman W. “Vergil and Epicureanism.” Classical Weekly 25, no. 12 (1932): 8996. ______. “Epicurean Contubernium.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 67 (1936): 55-63. Dickey, Eleanor. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding. New York: Oxford, 2006. Dillon, Mattthew. “Did Parthenoi Attend the Olympic Games? Girls and Women Competing, Spectating, and Carrying out Cult Roles at Greek Religious Festivals.” Hermes 128, no. 4 (2000): 457-480.
434 Dix, Thomas Keith. “Private and Public Libraries at Rome in the First Century B.C.: A Preliminary Study in the History of Roman Libraries.” Ph.D. diss. University of Michigan, 1986. Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1992. ______. “Polybius on Roman Women and Property.” American Journal of Philology 106, no. 2 (1985): 147-170. ______. “‛Public Libraries’ in Ancient Rome: Ideology and Reality.” Libraries & Culture 29, no. 3 (1994): 282-296. von Dobschütz, Ernst. Christian Life in the Primative Church. Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1904. Donado, Vara. “Cronologia de Erinna.” Emerita 41 (1973): 349-6. Donfried, Karl P. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence.” New Testament Studies (1985): 336-56. ______. “The Imperial Cults of Thessalonica.” In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, edited by Richard Horsely, 215-23. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Downing, Francis Gerald. Cynics, Paul, and the Pauline churches: Cynics and Christian Origin. London: Routledge, 1988. Downing, F. Gerald. “A Cynical Response to the Subjection of Women.” Philosophy 69, no. 268 (1994): 229-230. Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. ______. “Two Women of Samos.” In The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola, 222-82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Droge, Arthur J. “Justin Martyr and the Restoration of Philosophy.” Church History 56, no. 3 (1987): 303-19. Droge, Arthur J. “Mori Lucrum: Paul and Ancient Theories of Suicide.” Novum Testamentum 30, no. 3 (1988): 263-86. Dudley, D. R. A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century. London: Methuen, 1937. Dunn, James D. G. 1 Corinthians. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003. ______. Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. vol. 9. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. ______. “The New Perspective on Paul.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 65 (1983): 95-122.
435 ______. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a. Dallas: Word, 1988. ______. Romans 9-16. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38b. Dallas: Word, 1988. ______. “Did Paul have a covenant theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27.” In Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline De-Roo, 287-307. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Duchrow, U. Christenheit und Weltverantwortung. Traditionsgeschichte und systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre. Forschungen und Berichte der Evangelischen Studienge- meinschaft 25. Stüttgart: Klett, 1970. Dunbabin, T. J. “The Early History of Corinth.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 68 (1948): 59-69. Durant, William. The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1926. Dyck, Andrew R. “Dressing to Kill: Attire as a Proof and Means of Characterization in Cicero’s Speeches.” Arethusa 34, no. 1 (2001): 119-30. Dyson, J. T. “Dido the Epicurean.” Classical Antiquity 15, no. 2 (1996): 203-221. Dzielska, Maria. Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History. Translated by Pior Pieńkowski. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1986. Edmonds, J. M. “The Epigrams of Balbilla.” Classical Review 39, no. 5 (1925): 107-110. ______. “P. S. I. 1090.” Mnemosyne, 3rd ser., 6, no. 2 (1938): 195-203. ______. “A Quotation of Sappho in Juvenal Satire 6.” Phoenix 45, no. 3 (1991): 255-7. ______. “Sappho’s Book as Depicted on an Attic Vase.” Classical Quarterly 16 (1922): 1-14. Eilers, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Eisenstadt, S. N. and L. Roniger. Partons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Eisenberger, H. Sokrates, Diotima und die “Wahrheit” über »eros«. Edited by Freyr Roland Varwig, 83-218. Heidelberg, 1987. Elliot, John. “Elders as Honored Household Heads and Not Holders of ‘Office’ in Earliest Christianity. A Review Article.” Review of The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity by Alastair Campbell. Biblical Theology Bulletin 33, no. 2 (2003): 77-82. ______. A Home for The Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortess, 1981.
436 ______. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Elliot, Mark A. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Elliott, John H. “Patronage and Clientage.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh, 142-56. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Engberg-Pederson, Troels. “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s Xa/rij and Its Human Response.” Harvard Theological Review 101, no. 1 (2008): 15-44. ______. “The Material Spirit: Cosmology and Ethics in Paul.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 179-197. ______. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster, 2000. Engel, David M. “Women’s Role in the Home and the State: Stoic Theory Reconsidered.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 101 (2003): 267-288. Erskine, W. The Hellenistic Stoa. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Esler, Philip. Conflict and identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Evans, Jane DeRose. “Prostitutes in the Portico of Pompey? A Reconsideration.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 139, no. 1 (2009): 123145. Everitt, Anthony. Cicero: A Turbulent Life. London: John Murray, 2001. Eyre, J. J. “Roman Education in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser. 10, no. 1 (1963): 47-59. Fantham, Elaine. “Covering the Head at Rome.” In Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, edited by Jonathan Edmondson and Allison Keith, 213-237. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. ______. et al. Women in the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Farla, Piet. “‘The Two Shall Become one Flesh’: Gen 1.27 and 2.24 in the New Testament Marriage Texts.” In Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by S. Draisma, 67-82. Kampen, Netherlands: J.H. Kok, 1989. Fee, Gordon D. “1 Corinthians 7.1 in the NIV.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980): 307-14.
437 ______. “1 Corinthians 7.1-7 Revisited.” In Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict, edited by Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliot, 197-213. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Feldman, Louis H. “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 99 (1968), 143-56. Feldman, L. H. Studies in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Ferguson, John. Clement of Alexandria. Edited by Sylvia Bowman. Twayne’s World Authors Series 289. New York: Twayne, 1974. ______. “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. vol. 2.36.4. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 2257-2327. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1990. ______. Moral Values in the Ancient World. London, Methuen: 1958. Ferrar, Giovanni R. F. The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ferrill, Arther. “Seneca’s Exile and the Ad Helviam: A Reinterpretation.” Classical Philology 61, no. 4 (1966): 253-257. Finney, Mark. “Honour, Head-coverings and Headship: 1 Corintians 11.2-16 in its Social Context.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 33 no. 1 (2010): 31-58. Filson, Floyd. The New Testament Against its Environment. London: SCM, 1950. ______. “The Significance of the Early House Churches.” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 109-12. Fiore, Benjamin. “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World, edited by J. Paul Sampley, 228-57. New York: Trinity, 2003. ______. “Reason in Paul and Plutarch: 1 Corinthians 5-6 and the Polemic against Epicureans.” In Greeks, Romans, and Christians, edited by David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks, 135-43. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Fish, Jeffrey and Kirk R. Sanders. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Another Look at Keqalh in 1 Corinthians 11:3.” New Testament Studies 35 no. 4 (1989): 503-511. ______. “Kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3.” Interpretation 47, no. 1 (1993): 52-59. Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
438 ______. Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White, eds. Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Novum Testamentum Supplement 110. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ______. “Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction: 1 Peter and Domestic Violence Against Slaves and Wives.” In Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson, edited by M. W. Hamilton, T. H. Olbricht, and J. Peterson, 24-44. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2007. ______., ed. Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Novum Testamentum Supplement 82. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ______. Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Atlanta: SBL, 1997. ______., ed. Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies. London: Routledge, 2008. ______. Dirk Obbink, Glenn S. Holland. Philodemus and the New Testament World. Novum Testamentum Supplement 111. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ______. and Thomas H. Olbricht. “Quod est comparandum: The problem of Parallels.” In Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Micheal White, 13-39. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Flemming, Rebecca. “Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World.” Classical Quarterly 57, no. 1 (2007): 257-279. Flinterman, Jaap-Jan. “Review: The Umbiquitous ‘Divine Man.’” Review of Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterführung der Diskussion by Erkki Koskenniemi and Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire by Graham Anderson. Numen 43, no. 1 (1996): 82-98. Fluery, A. Saint Paul et Seneque, Reserches sur les rapports du philosophe avec l’apotre et sur l’infiltration du christianisme naissant a travers le paganisme. Paris: Librairie Philosophique de la Drange, 1853. Foley, Helene Peet and Elaine Fantham et al., eds. Women in the Classical World. New York: Oxford, 1994. Forbes, Clarence A. “Crime and Punishment in Greek Athletics.” Classical Journal 47, no. 5 (1952): 169-173, 202-203. Forbes, Christopher. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 2.75. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995.
439 Ford, J. Massyngberde. “‘Hast Thou Tithed Thy Meal?’ and ‘Is Thy Child Kosher?’ (1 Cor 10:27ff and 1 Cor 7:14).” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 17 no. 1 (1966): 71-79. Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Fornara, C. and L. Samons II. Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Fortenbaugh, W. and E. Schütrumpf, Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Fowler, W. Warde. Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero. New York: Macmillan, 1909. Frier, Bruce W. The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s “Pro Caecina.” Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Freeman, Kathleen. “Plato: The Use of Inspiration.” Greece & Rome 49, no. 27 (1940): 137-49. Freisen, Steven J. “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis.” In Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, edited by Steven J. Freisen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters, 231-56. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Furst, Lilian R. Women Healers and Physicians: Climbing a Long Hill. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1999. Frede, D. “Out of the cave: What Socrates learned from Diotima.” In Nomodeiktes. Greek studies in honor of Martin Ostwald, edited by Ralph M. Rosen and Joseph Farrell, 397-422. Ann Anbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Fredrickson, David E. “Parrhsi/a in the Pauline Epistles.” In Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech, edited by John. New York: Brill, 1996. Freeman, Kathleen. “Plato: The Use of Inspiration.” Greece & Rome 49, no. 27 (1940): 137-49. French, E. B. “Archaeology in Greece 1990-91.” Archaeological Reports 37 (19901991): 3-78. Frier, Bruce W. A Casebook on Roman Family Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus,” Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 26 (2004): 323-61. Fuller, Benjamin A. G. A History of Philosophy. Translated by Sterling M. McMurrin New York: Holt, 1960.
440 Furst, Lilian R. Women Healers and Physicians: Climbing a Long Hill. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1999. Gaca, Kathy L. The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Politial Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christainity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. ______. “The Reproductive Technology of the Pythagoreans.” Classical Philology 95, no. 2 (2000): 113-132. Gallivan, Paul A. “Nero’s Liberation of Greece.” Hermes 101, no. 2 (1973): 230-234. Garcilazo, Albert V. The Corinthian Dissenters and the Stoics. Studies in Biblical Literature 106. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Gardner, Jane F. Being a Roman Citizen. New York: Routledge, 2002. ______. Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. ______. “The Recovery of Dowry in Roman Law.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 35, no. 2 (1985): 449-453. Gardner, Jane F. and Thomas Wiedemann, eds. The Roman Household: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1991. Gardner, Percy. “Boat-Races among the Greeks.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 2 (1881): 90-97. Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Garland, Robert. Celebrity in Antiquity: From Media Tarts to Tabloid Queens. London: Duckworth, 2006. Garlington, Don B. “The New Perspective on Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades Later.” Criswell Theological Review 2, no. 2 (2005): 17-38. Garnsey, Peter. “Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire.” Past & Present 41 (1968): 3-24. ______. Social Status and Legal Privilege. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1970. Garrison, Roman. “Paul’s Use of the Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9.” Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses 22, no. 2 (1993): 209-17. ______. “Phoebe, the Servant-benefactor and Gospel Traditions.” In Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson, edited by Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Robert Desjardins, 63-73. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Ontario: Wilfrid University Press, 2000.
441 Garthwaite, John. “Patronage and Poetic Immortality in Martial, Book 9.” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 51, no. 2 (1998): 161-175. Gaventa, B. R. “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm.” Novum Testamentum 28, no. 4 (1986): 309-26. Geagan, Daniel J. “The Isthmian Dossier of P. Licinius Priscus Juventianus.” Hesperia 58, no. 3 (1989): 349-360. ______. “Notes on the Agonistic Institutions of Roman Corinth.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968): 69-76. Gebhard, Elizabeth. “The Isthmian Games and the Sanctuary of Poseidon in the Early Empire.” In The Corinthia in the Roman Period, edited by Timothy E. Gregory, 78-94. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 8. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993. Gellner, Ernst and John Waterbury, eds. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies. London: Duckworth, 1977. Giannantoni, G. Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae. 4 vols. Napoli: Bibliopolis, 19901991. Giangrande, Giuseppe. “An Epigram of Erinna.” Classical Review, n.s., 19, no. 1 (1969): 1-3. Gigante, Marcello. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Translated by Dirk Obbink. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. Gill, David W. J. “Erastus.” Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 2 (1989): 293-301. ______. “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church.” Tyndale Bulletin 44, no.2 (1993): 323-37. Gillihan, Yonder Moynihan. “Jewish Laws on Illicit Marriage, the Defilement of Offspring, and the Holiness of the Temple: a new Halakic Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 4 (2002): 711-744. Gini, Anthony. “The Manly Intellect of His Wife: Xenophon, ‘Oeconomicus’ Ch. 7.” The Classical World 86, no. 6 (1993): 483-486. Ginsburg, Judith. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Glad, Clarence E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Gleason, M. W. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Goessler, Lisette. “Advice to the Brice and Groom: Plutarch Gives a Detailed Account of his Views on Marriage.” In Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A
442 Consolation to his Wife: English Translations, Commentaries, Interpretative Essays, and Bibliography, translated by Hazel Harvey, edited by Sarah B. Pomeroy, 97-115. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gold, Barbara. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1987. Goldberg, Sander M. “Plautus on the Palatine.” Journal of Roman Studies 88 (1998): 120. Goldman, Norma. “Reconstructing Roman Clothing.” In The World of Roman Costume, edited by Judith Lynn Sebesta, Larissa Bonfante, 213-34. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. Goodenough, Erwin. A neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932. Gordon, J. Dorcas. Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Gordon, Pamela. Epicurus in Lycia: The Second-Century World of Diogenes of Oenoanda. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Gordon, Pamela. “Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the School of Epicurus.” In Philodemus and the New Testament World, edited by Dirk Obbink John T. Fitzgerald and Glenn S. Holland, 221-44. Novum Testamentum Supplement 111. Boston: Brill, 2004. Goudsmit, S. A. “An Illiterate Scribe.” American Journal of Archaeology 78, no. 1 (1974): 78. Grant, Frederick Clifton. “St. Paul and Stoicism.” Biblical World 45, no. 5 (1915): 26881. Grant, Robert. “Dietary Laws Among the Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 299-310. Grant, Robert M. “Hellenistic Elements in 1 Corinthians.” In Early Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughhy, edited by A. Wikgren, 60-66. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961. ______. “SPEIRETAI: Paul’s Anthopogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 1 (2001): 101-22. Grant, Robert. “Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus.” Harvard Theological Review 40, no. 4 (1947): 227-56. Green, Monica. Review of A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe. Isis 80, no. 1 (1989): 178-179.
443 Greene, Ellen. “Apostrophe and Women’s Erotics in the Poetry of Sappho,” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 124 (1994): 41-56. ______. Review of A History of Women Philosophers. Volume I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe. Isis 80, no. 1 (1989): 178-179. ______., ed. Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome. Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2005. Grese, William C. “De profectibus in virtute.” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, edited by Hans D. Betz, 11-33. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Griffin, Miriam. “De Beneficiis and Roman Society.” Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 92-113. Grindheim, Sigurd. “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Advice to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 2:6-16).”Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 4 (2002): 689-709. Grote, George. Plato, and the Other Companions of Sokrates. London: John Murray, 1865. Grubbs, Judith Evans. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London: Routledge, 2002. Grudem, Wayne A. “Does kephalē (“head”) Mean ‘source’ or ‘authority over’ in Greek Literature: A Survey of 2,336 Examples.” Trinity Journal, n.s. 6, no. 1 (1985): 3859. ______. “The Meaning of kephalē (“head”): an Evaluation of new Evidence, Real and Alleged.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 1 (2001): 25-65. ______. “The meaning of kephalē (“head”): A Response to Recent Studies.” Trinity Journal, n.s. 11, no. (1990): 3-72. Gundry-Volf, Judith M. “Celibate Pneumatics and Social Power: On the Motivations for Sexual Asceticism in Corinth.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 48 no. 3-4 (1994): 105-126. ______. “Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7),” in Corinthian Correspondence, edited by Reimund Bieringer, 519541. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Guthrie, W. K. C. The Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Hall, A. S. “Who Was Diogenes of Oenoanda?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 99 (1979): 160-3. Hall, David R. The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence. New York: T&T Clark, 2003.
444 Hall, Robert G. “The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 2 (1987): 277-87. Hallett, Judith P. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society. Women and the Elite Family Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Halperin, David M. How to do the History of Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. ______. “Plato and Erotic Reciprocity.” Classical Antiquity 5, no. 1 (1986): 60-80. ______. “Why is Diotima a Woman? Platonic Eros and the Figuration of Gender.” In Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient World, edited by D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin, 257-309. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Hanslik, R. “Pompeia Plotina.” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 21, no. 2, (1921), 2293-2298. Harland, Philip. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Harrill, J. Albert. “Paul and Slavery: The Problem of 1 Corinthians 7:21.” Biblical Research 39 (1994): 5-28. Haskins, Ekaterina. “Pythagorean Women.” In Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians, edited by Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran, 315-19. Westport: Preager, 2005. Hawley, Richard. “Ancient Collections of Women's Sayings.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 50 (2007): 161-69. ______. “The Problem of Women Philosophers in Ancient Greece.” In Women in Ancient Societies: ‘An Illusion in the Night, edited by Leonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler, and Maria Wyke, 70-87. New York: Routledge, 1994. Hawthorne, John G. “The Myth of Palaemon.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 89 (1958): 92-98. Hay, David M. “Paul’s Indifference to Authority.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88, no. 1 (1969): 36-44. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997. Heil, John Paul. The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. van Henten, Jan Willem and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds. Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. New York: Brill, 1994. Heinrici, Georg C. F. “Die christengemeinden Koinths und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen.” Zeitschrift für neuen testamentlische Wissenschaft 19 (1896): 465-509.
445 ______. Paulinische Probleme. Leipzig: Durr, 1914. ______. Der zweite Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus and die Korinther. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1887. Helleman, W. E. “Penelope as Lady Philosophy.” Phoenix 49, no. 4 (1995): 283-302. ______. “Homer’s Penelope: A Tale of Feminine Arete.” Echoes du Monde Classique/Classical Views 14, no 2 (1995): 227-250. Hemelrijk, Emily Ann. Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Élite from Cornelia to Julia Domna. London: Routledge, 1999. Henderson, Bernard. Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian. London: Methuen, 1903. Henderson, W. J. “Criteria in the Greek Lyric Contests.” Mnemosyne 42, no. 1 (1989): 24-40. Henry, Madeline M. Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and her Biographical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Hershkowitz, Debra. “Pliny the Poet.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser. 42, no. 2 (1995): 168181. Heskel, Julia. “Cicero as Evidence for Attitudes to Dress in the Late Republic.” In The World of Roman Costume, edited by Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante, 133-45. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. Hewitt, Joseph William. “The Gratitude of Horace to Maecenas.” Classical Journal 36, no. 8 (1941): 464-72. Highet, Gilbert. “Libertino patre natus.” Journal of Philology 94 (1973): 268-81. Hijmans, B. L. Ἄσκησις, Notes on Epictetus’ Educational System. Assen: van Gorcum, 1959. Hillert, A. Antike Arztedarstellungen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1990. Hock, Ronald and Edward O’Neil. The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, edited by Hans Dieter Betz and Edward O’Neil. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translation Series 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Hock, Ronald. “The Problem of Paul’s Social Class: Further Reflections.” In Paul’s World, edited by Stanley Porter, 7-18. Pauline Studies 4. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ______. “Paul and Greco-Roman Education.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, edited by J. Paul Sampley. New York: Trinity Press, 2003. ______. “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 4 (1978): 555-64. Reprinted in Tentmaking: Perspectives on
446 Self-Supporting Ministry. Edited by James M. M. Francis and Leslie J. Francis, 413. Leominster: Gracewing, 1998. ______. “Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17 (1976): 41-53. Reprinted in Die Kyniker in der moderne Forschung: Aufsätze mit Einführung und Bibliographie. Edited by Margarethe Billerbeck, 259-71. Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie 15. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1991. ______. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. ______. “The Workshop as a Social Setting for Paul’s Missionary Preaching.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 438-50. Reprinted in Tentmaking: Perspectives on Self-Supporting Ministry, 14-25. Hodge, Caroline E. Johnson. “Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.” Harvard Theological Review 103, no. 1 (2010): 1-25. Holland, Francis. Seneca. London: Books for Libraries Press, 1969. Holloway, Paul A. “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8-9.” The Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 1 (1998): 89-96. Holmyard, Harold R., III. “Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church.” Biblotheca sacra 154, no. 616 (1997): 461-472. Hope, Richard. The Book of Diogenes Laertius: Its Spirit and Method. New York: Columbia University Press, 1930. Hopper, R. J. “Ancient Corinth.” Greece and Rome, 2nd ser. 2, no. 1 (1955), 2-15. Horrell, David. “The Development of Theological Ideology in Pauline Christianity: A Structuration Theory Perspective.” In Modelling Early Christianity: SocialScientific Studies of the New Testament and Its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler, 224-36. London: Routledge, 1995. Horrell, David G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. ______. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Horsley, Richard H, ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harissburg: Trinity, 1997. ______. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4. Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University, 1987. ______. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5. Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University, 1989.
447 ______., ed. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004. ______., ed. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000. Houston, George W. “Slave and Freedman Personnel of Public Libraries in Ancient Rome.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 132, no. 1/2 (2002): 139-176. Howe, Winifred E. “Three Days in the Life of a Roman Prince: Germanicus’ First Day at School.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 11, no. 11 (1916): 1-4. Hubbard, Thomas K. “The Invention of Sulpicia.” Classical Journal 100, no. 2 (2005): 177-194. Hunter, David G. “The Reception and Interpretation of Paul in Late Antiquity: 1 Corinthians 7 and the Ascetic Debates.” In Reception and interpretation of the Bible in late antiquity: Proceedings of the Montreal Colloquium in Honor of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006, edited by Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucian Turcescu, 163-191. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hunter, L. W. “Cicero’s Journey to His Province of Cilicia in 51 B.C.” Journal of Roman Studies 3, no. 1 (1913): 73-97. Hunter, William Alexander. A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code. London: Maxwell & Son, 1885. Hurd, John C., Jr. The Origins of 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury, 1965. Hutchings, Noël and William D. Rumsey, eds. The Collaborative Bibliography of Women in Philosophy. Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center 1997. Ierodiakonou, Katerina, ed. Topics in Stoic Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Immerwahr, H. R. “Book Rolls on Attic Vases.” In Festschrift Ullman I, edited by C. Henderson, 17-41. Rome: Ed. di storia e letteratura, 1964. ______. “More Book Rolls and Attic Vases.” Antike Kunst 16 (1973) 143-47. Ingalls, Wayne B. “Ritual Performance as Training for Daughters in Archaic Greece.” Phoenix 54, no. 1 (2000): 1-20. Inwood, Brad. “Seneca in His Philosophical Milieu.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97 (1995): 63-76. Inwood, B. and L. P. Gerson. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. Instone-Brewer, David. “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 1 (2001): 101-115.
448 ______. “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Jewish Greek and Aramaic Marriage and Divorce Papyri.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 2 (2001): 225-243. ______. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Ioppolo, Anna Maria. “The Academic Position of Favorinus of Arelate.” Phronesis 38, no. 2 (1993): 183-213. Irigaray, Luce. 'Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato's Symposium, Diotima's Speech.' In Feminist Interpretations of Plato, translated by Eleanor H. Kuykendall, edited by Nancy Tuana, 181-196. University Press: Pennsylvania, 1994. Ivarsson, Fredrik. “Vice Lists and Deviant Masculinity: The Rhetorical Function of 1 Corinthians 5:10-11 and 6:9-10.” In Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, edited by Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 163-84. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Jacobs, Jonathan A. Aristotle’s Virtues: Nature, Knowledge and Human Good. New York: Lang, 2004. Jacobson, D. M. and M. P. Weitzman. “What Was Corinthian Bronze?” American Journal of Archaeology 96, no. 2 (1992): 237-247. James, Sharon L. Learned Girls and Male Persuasion: Gender and Reading in Roman Love Elegy. Berkely: University of California Press, 2003. Jaquette, James L. “Life and Death, ‘Adiaphora,’ and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies.” Novum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (1996): 30-54 Jennings, Victoria. The World of Ion of Chios. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ______. “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission.” In The Social World of Christianity and Judais: Esssays in Honor of Howard Clark Kee, edited by Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley, 142-161. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. ______. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Jewett, Robert. “The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans 1:24-7.” In Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L. Balch, 223-241. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ______. “Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thess 3:10.” Biblical Research 38 (1993): 23-43. ______. “Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts.” Quarterly Review: A Journal of Theological Resources for Ministry 14 (1994): 43-58.
449 ______. The Thessalonian Coorespondence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 7. Edited by Grant R. Osborne. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Johnson, Alan F. “A Review of the Scholarly Debate on the Meaning of “head” (kephalē) in Paul’s Writings.” Ashland Theological Journal 41 (2009): 35-57. Johnston, David. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Johnston, Patricia A. “Poenulus I, 2 and Roman Women.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 110 (1980): 143-159. Jones, Francis L. “Martial, the Client.” Classical Journal (1935): 355-61. Jones, H. The Epicurean Tradition; Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the Second Century B.C. to the Second Century A.D. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991. Jones, Nicholas F. “The Civic Organization of Corinth.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 110 (1980): 161-193. Jones, Nicholas F. “The Organization of Corinth Again.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Epigrapik 120, (1998): 49-56. Jordan, Borimir. “Isthmian Amusements.” Classics Ireland 8 (2001): 32-67 Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Judge, E. A. “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents.” Tyndale Bulletin 35, no. 1 (1984): 3-24. ______. “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community.” Journal of Religious History 1 (1961): 5-15. ______. The First Christians in the Roman World. Edited by James R. Harrison. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ______. Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul. Christchurch, NZ: University of Cantebury Press, 1982. ______. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays. Edited by David M. Scholer. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008 ______. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale, 1960. ______. “The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History.” Journal of Religious History 11 (1980): 201-17. Julia, Annas. “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism.” Mind, n.s. 86, no. 344 (1977): 532-554.
450 Jungkutz, Richard. Christian Approval of Epicureanism. Chicago: American Society of Church History, 1962. ______. “Epicureanism and the Church Fathers.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1961. Kahane, Ahuvia. Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition. Lantham: Lexington Books, 2005. Kahn, Charles K. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001. Kajava, Mika. “When did the Isthmian Games Return to Corinth? (Reading ‘Corinth’ 8.3.153).” Classical Philology 97, no. 2 (2002): 168-78. Kampen, Natalie. Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia. Berlin: Mann, 1981. Karle Gustav Dolfe, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 83 no. 1-2 (1992): 115-118. Käsemann, Ernest. Commentary to Romans. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1980. Kaster, Robert A. “ Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983): 323-346. ______. “The Social Status of the Grammarians.” In Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, edited by Robert A. Kaster, 99-134. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Kearsley, R. A. “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul.” Tyndale Bulletin 50, no. 2 (1999): 189-211. Keener, Craig S. 1-2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Keener, Craig S. “Interethnic marriages in the New Testament (Matt 1:3-6; Acts 7:29; 16:1-3; cf. 1 Cor 7:14).” Criswell Theological Review n.s. 6, no. 2 (2009): 25-43. Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women, and Wives. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. Keith, Alison. “Critical Trends in Interpreting Sulpicia.” Classical World 100, no. 1 (2006): 3-10. Keller, Marie Noël. Priscilla and Aquila: Paul’s Coworkers in Christ Jesus. Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith. Edited by Bruce Malina. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2010. Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.
451 ______. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Kennedy, Kristen. “Hipparchia the Cynic: Feminist Rhetoric and the Ethics of Embodiment.” Hypatia 14, no. 2 (1999): 48-71. Kersey, Ethel M. Women philosophers: A Bio-Critical Source Book. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. Kidd, R. M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A Bourgeois Form of Early Christianity? Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Kim, Chan-Hae. “The Papyrus Invitation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 34, no. 3 (1975): 398-402. Kingsly, Peter. “From Pythagoras to the Turba philosophorum: Egypt and Pythagorean Tradition.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 57 (1994): 1-13. Kinman, Brent. “Appoint the Despised as Judges! (1 Corinthians 6:4).” Tyndale Bulletin 48, no. 2 (1997): 345-54. Klabunde, Michael Robert. Boys or Women?: The Rhetoric of Sexual Preference in Achilles Tatius, Plutarch, and Pseudo-Lucian. Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2001. Klassen, William. “Musonius Rufus, Jesus, and Paul: Three First Century Feminists.” In From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honor of Francis Wright Beare, edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd, 185-206. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Junia Theodora und die Gemeinde von Korinth.” In Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum, edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Otto Merk, 42-57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000. ______. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions. Translated by Brian McNeil. New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Kloppenborg, John S. Collegia and thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 16-30. London: Routledge, 1996. ______. “Edwin Hatch, Churches and collegia.” In Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Christianity and Judaism, edited by B. McLean, 212-238. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993. Klotz, Frieda and Katerina Olkonomopoulou. Philosopher’s Banquet: Plutarch’s Table Talk in the Intellectual Culture of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Knapp, Charles. “Travel in Ancient Times as Seen Plautus and Terence. II.” Classical Philology 2, no. 3 (1907): 281-304.
452 Kunstler, Barton Lee. “Family Dynamics and Female Power in Ancient Sparta.” Helios 13, no. 2 (1986): 31-48. Koester, Helmut and James M. Robinson, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Tübingen: Mohr, 1971. Kokolakis, Minos. “Intellectual Activity at the Fringes of the Games.” In Proceedings on an International Symposium on the Olympic Games: 5-9 of September, 1988, edited by William Coulson and Helmut Kyrieleis, 153-8. Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen, 1992. Konstan, David. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Koperski, V. “Knowledge of Christ and Knowledge of God in the Corinthian Correspondence.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by Reimund Bieringer, 377-96. Lueven: Lueven University Press, 1996. Korpela, Jukka. Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom: eine sozialgeschichte Untersuchung. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Kraemer, Ross S. “The Conversion of Women to Ascetic Forms of Christianity.” Signs 6, no. 2, Studies in Change (1980): 298-307. ______. Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kreyer, Johannes. L. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchristentum. Berlin: Gaertners, 1887. Kroeger, Catherine. “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-Roman Cults of Women.” Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 25-38. Kurfess, Alfons. “Zu dem apokryphen Breifwechsel zwischen dem Philosophen Seneca und dem Apostel Paulus.” Aevum 26 (1952): 42-8. Kugleman, Richard. “1 Cor. 7:36-38.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10, no. 1 (1948): 6371. Kurke, Leslie.”Inventing the ‘Hetaira’: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece.” Classical Antiquity 16, no. 1 (1997): 106-150. Kuttner, Ann L. “Culture and History at Pompey’s Museum.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 129, (1999): 343-373. Laes, Christian. Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Lambropoulou, V. “Some Pythagorean Female Virtues.” In Women in Antiquity: New Assessments, edited by R. Hawley and B. Levick, 122-35. New York: Routledge 1995.
453 Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. ______. “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word of the Cross’: The Rhetorical Scheme in 1 Corinthians 1-4.” Int 44 (1990): 117-31. Langlands, Rebecca. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ______. “A Woman’s Influence on a Roman Text.” In Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization, edited by F. McHardy and E. Marshall, 115-26. London: Routledge, 2004. Lanzillotta, L. Roig. “The Early Christians and Human Sacrifice.” In The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, edited by Jan N. Bremmer, 81-102. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Larson, Jennifer. Greek Heroine Cults. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Lee, Michelle V. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lewis, D. M. “Attic Manumissions.” Hesperia 28 (1959): 203-8. Lefkowitz, Mary. The Lives of the Greek Poets. London: Duckworth, 1981. ______. “Wives and Husbands.” Greece and Rome, 2nd ser. 30, no. 1 (1983): 31-47. Leon, E. F. “Note on Caecilia Attica.” Classical Bulletin 38 (1962): 35-6. Levick, Barbara. Julia Domna, Syrian Empress. London: Routledge, 2007. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Two Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ______. “Synagogue Leadership: The Case of the Archisynagogue.” In Jews in a GrecoRoman World, edited by M. Goodman, 195-213. New York: Clarendon University Press, 1998. ______. “Synagogue Officials: the Evidence from Caesarea and its Implications for Palestine and the Diaspora.” In Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, edited by A. Raban and K. Holum, 392-400. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Levinskaya, Irina. The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Lietzmann, Hans and W. G. Kümmel. An Die Korinther 1/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969. Lightfoot, Joseph B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. New York: Macmillan. Lilla, Salvatore R. C. Clement of Alexandria. Oxford: University Press, 1971.
454 Lim, Timothy H. “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power.” Novum Testamentum 29, no. 2 (1987): 137-4. Liong-Seng Phua, Richard. Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1 in the light of the Jewish Diaspora. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Lintott, Andrew. “Freedmen and Slaves in the Light of Legal Documents from First Century A.D. Campania.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 52, no. 2 (2002): 555-565. Lloyd, Genevieve, ed., Feminism and History of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Long, A. A. and D. N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol 1: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ______. The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 2: Greek and Latin Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Longfellow, Brenda. Roman Imperialism and Civic Patronage: Form, Meaning and Ideology in Monumental Fountain Complexes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Longnecker, Bruce. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Longnecker, Richard. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Edited by Ralph P. Martin Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Lowery, David K. “The Head Covering and Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:2-34.” Bibliotheca sacra, 143 no. 570 (1986): 155-163. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. MacDonald, Margaret. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ______. “Early Christian Women and Unbelievers.” In A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff, 14-28. London: T&T Clark. MacGregor, Kirk R. “Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a Prohibition of Homosexuality?” Bibliotheca sacra 166, no. 662 (2009): 201-216. MacKendrick, P. L. “Roman Colonization.” Phoenix 6, no. 4 (1952): 139-146. MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
455 ______. “Women’s Power in the Principate.” In Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary, edited by Ramsay MacMullen, 169-76. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. ______. “Women in Public.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 29, no. 2 (1980): 208-218. Malherbe, Abraham. “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians.” In Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem Freundes- und Schuleterkreis Dieter Lubermann zum 60. Geburstag, edited by Stefan Maser and Egbert Schlarb, 136-42. Marburg: Elwart Verlag, 1999. ______. “The Beasts at Ephesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87, no. 1 (1968): 71-80. ______. “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii.” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 203-17. ______. “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. vol. 2.26.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 227-333. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1992. ______. “MH ΓENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul.” Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 231-40; page 236 corrected in “Erratum: MH ΓENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul. Harvard Theological Review 74, no 1 (1981), 236. ______. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ______. “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11).” In The Function of Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situance Contexts. Fetschrift for Lars Hartman, edited by Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, 813-26. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. ______. “Self Definition among Cynics and Epicureans.” In Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 11-24. Augsburg: Fortress Press, 1988. ______. Review of Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature by Hans Dieter Betz. Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 1 (1981): 140-142. ______. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977. Malitz, J. “Helvidius Priscus und Vespasian.” Hermes 113 (1985): 231-246. Manning, C. E. “The Consolatory Tradition and Seneca’s Attitude to the Emotions.” Greece & Rome 21, no. 1 (1974): 71-81. ______. On Seneca's “Ad Marciam.” Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Seneca and the Stoics on the Equality of the Sexes.” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 26, no. 2 (1973): 170-177.
456 DeMaris, Richard E. “Demeter in Roman Corinth: Local Development in a Mediterranean Religion.” Numen 42, no. 2 (1995): 105-117. Marrou, Henri. A History of Education in Antiquity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1956. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, ______. “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32.” Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995): 332-355. ______. “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59, no. 3 (1991): 347-89. Martin, Troy W. “ Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004): 75-84. ______. “Veiled Exhortations Regarding the Veil.” In Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Ericksson, 255-73. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Martin, Jr., Hubert and Jane E. Phillips. “Consolatio ad uxorem.” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, edited by Hans Dieter Betz, 394-441. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Martin, W. “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education.” Classical Antiquity 16, no. 1 (1997): 57-78. Marshall, Anthony J. “Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome.” Phoenix 30, no. 3 (1976): 252-264. Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr, 1987. Martin, Dale D. “Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 51-64. Martin, Hubert, Jr. and Jane E. Phillips. “Consolatio ad uxorem.” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, edited by Hans D. Betz, 410-13. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Martin, Richard P. “Ancient Collections of Women’s Sayings: Form and Function.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 50, no 1 (2008): 161-9. ______. “Enigmas of the Lyric Voice.” In Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, edited by André Lardinois and Laura McClure, 5574. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. ______. “The Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom.” In Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, edited by Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke, 108-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
457 Mascia, Carmin. A History of Philosophy. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guilded Press, 1957. Mason, H. J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions - A Lexicon and Analysis. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974. Massey, Preston T. “The Meaning of katakalyptō and kata kephalēs echōn in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16.” New Testament Studies 53 no., 4 (2007): 502-523. Mathews, Shailer. “The Social Teaching of Paul. VII. The Family.” The Biblical World 2, no. 2 (1902): 123-33. Mattill, A. J., Jr. “The Value of Acts as a Source for the Study of Paul.” In Perspectives on Luke-Acts, edited by C. H. Talbert, 76-98. Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978. Mauch, Mercedes. Senecas Frauenbild in den philosophischen Schriften. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Mayor, John E. B. Thirteen Satires of Juvenal. New York: Macmillan, 1889. McAlister, Linda, ed. Hypatia’s Daughters: 1500 Years of Women Philosophers. Indiana University Press, 1996. McCasland, S. Vernon. “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69, no. 2 (1950): 85-100. McClure, Laura. Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus. New York: Routledge, 2003. McClure, Laura. “Subversive Laughter: The Sayings of Courtesans in Book 13 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae.” American Journal of Philology 124, no. 2 (2003): 259-94. McDonnell, Myles. “Divorce Initiated by Women in Rome: The Evidence of Plautus.” American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983): 54-80. McDonnell, Myles. “Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome.” Classical Quarterly 46 (1996): 469–91. McDermott, William C. “Plotina Augusta and Nicomachus of Gerasa.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 26, no. 2 (1977): 192-203. McGinn, Thomas A. J. Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Roman Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. McGready, Wayne O. “EKKLĒSIA and Voluntary Associations, in Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg et al (New York: Routledge, 1996), 59-73. McInerny, Ralph M. A History of Western Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963.
458 McLean, B. H. “The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Church Formation.” In Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of John C. Hurd, edited by B. McLean, 239-70. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 86. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993. McKay, Alexander Gordon. Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998; first ed., London: Thames and Hudson, 1975. McManus, Barbara. “Index Of Images, Part III,” Vroma: A Virtual Community For Teaching And Learning Classics, www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/index3.html. Accessed Feb. 6, 2012. McMurtry, W. J. “Excavations by the American School at the Theatre of Sikyon. I. General Report of the Excavations.” American Journal of Archaeology 5, no. 3 (1889): 267-286. McNelis, Charles. “Greek Grammarians and Roman Society during the Early Empire: Statius’ Father and His Contemporaries.” Classical Antiquity 21, no. 1 (2002): 6794. Meecham, Henrey G. Light from Ancient Letters. London: Allen & Unwin, 1923. Meek, James A. “The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction for the Uninitiated.” Concordia Journal 27, no. 3 (2001): 208-33. Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. ______. Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums: ausgew. Beiträge zum frühchristlichen Gemeinschaftsleben in seiner gesellschaftlichen Umwelt. München: Kaiser, 1979. ______. and John T. Fitzgerald, eds. The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception, and Criticism. Norton Critical Editions in the History of Ideas. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Meggitt, Justin J. “Response to Martin and Theissen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 85-94. ______. “The First Churches: Social Life.” In The Biblical World, edited by John Barton, 157-56. London: Routledge, 2002. ______. “Sources: Use, Abuse, and Neglect: The Importance of Ancient Popular Culture.” In Christianity at Corinth, edited by Edward Adams and David Horrell, 241-54. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Ménage, Gilles. The History of Women Philosophers. Translated by Beatrice H. Zedler Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. Meric, R. et al, eds. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Inschriften griechischer. Stadte aus Kleinasien 17.1. Habelt: Bonn, 1981.
459 Merriam, Carol U. “Sulpicia: Just Another Roman Poet.” Classical World 100, no. 1 (2006): 11-15. Meyers, Eric M. “The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-Palestinian Domestic Architecture: The Case of Roman-Period Galilee.” In Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, edited by David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Mihaila, Corin. The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance Toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Miller, J. Edward. “Some Observations on the Text-critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, no. 2 (2003): 217-236. Millis, Benjamin W. ‘“Miserable Huts’ in Post-146 B.C. Corinth.” Hesperia 75, no. 3 (2006): 397-404. Mitchell, Alan C. “Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Cor 6:11-11.” New Testament Studies, 39 no 4 (1993): 562-586. Mitchell, Andrew. “Friendship Amongst the Self-Sufficient: Epicurus,” Essays in Philosophy: 2, no. 2 (2001). Available at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol2/iss2/5. Accessed Feb. 6, 2012. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Paul’s Letters to Corinth.” In Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, edited by Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen, 307-38. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. ______. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Mohler, S. L. “Slave Education in the Roman Empire.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 71 (1940): 262-80. Moles, J. L. “The Career and Conversion of Dio Chrysostom.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 98 (1978): 79-100. Molvaer, Reidulf K. “St. Paul’s Views on Sex according to 1 Corinthians 7:9 & 36-38,” Studia theologica 58, no. 1 (2004): 45-59. Monoson, S. Sara. “Remembering Pericles: The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato’s Menexenus.” Political Theory 26, no. 4 (1998): 489-513. Montiglio, Silvia. “Should the Aspiring Wise Man Travel? A Conflict in Seneca’s Thought.” The American Journal of Philology 127, no. 4 (2006): 553-586. Montserrat, Dominic. “Heron ‘Bearer of Philosophia’ and Hermione ‘Grammatike.’” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 83 (1997): 223-226. Mooney, William West. Travel among the Ancient Romans. Boston: Gorham Press, 1920.
460 Moore, Kenneth Royce. Sex and the Second-Best City. New York: Routledge, 2005. Morford, Mark. “Juvenal’s Fifth Satire.” American Journal of Philology 98, no. 3 (1977): 219-45. Morrison, J. S. “Pythagoras of Samos.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 6, no. 3 (1956): 135156. Morstein-Marx, Robert. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Mosse, Claude. “Women in the Spartan Revolutions of the Third Century BC.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, edited by S. Pomeroy, 138-53l. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Motto, Anna Lydia. “Seneca on Women’s Liberation.” Classical World 65, no. 5 (1972): 155-157. Moule, C. D. F. The Birth of the New Testament. London: Harper & Row, 1962. Mount, Christopher. “1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a nonPauline Interpolation.” Journal Biblical Literature 124, no. 2 (2005): 313-340. ______. Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Munro, W. Authority in Peter and Paul: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and I Peter. Society for New Testament Studies 45. Cambridge: University Press, 1983. ______. “Interpolation in the Epistles: Weighing Probability.” New Testament Studies 36 (1990) 431-443. ______. “Patriarchy and Charismatic Community in ‘Paul.’” In Women and Religion: 1972 AAR Proceedings, edited by Judith Plaskow et al, 141-59. Missoula, MT: American Academy of Religion, 1973. ______. “Woman, Text and Canon: The Strange Case of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.” Biblical Theological Bulletin 18 (1988): 26-31. Murley, Clyde. “Cicero, Pro Archia and Horace, Epistles II, 1, 223ff.” The Classical Journal 21, no. 7 (1926): 533-4. Murnaghan, S. “How a Woman Can Be More Like a Man: The Dialogue between Ischomachus and His Wife in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus.” Helios 15, no. 1 (1988): 9-22. Murhpy, Paul R. “Cicero’s Pro Archia and the Periclean Epitaphios.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 89 (1958): 99-101. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The Corinth That Saint Paul Saw.” Biblical Archaeologist 47, no. 3 (1984): 147-159.
461 ______. “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1986): 81-94. ______. “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?” Journal Biblical Literature 95, no. 4 (1976), 615-621. ______. “Prisca and Aquila: Travleing Tentmakers and Church Builders.” Bible Review (1992): 40-51. ______. ‘‘Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:3- 16.” Classical Biblical Quarterly 42 (1989): 482-500. ______. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983). Murray, Oswyn. “Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharoic Kingship.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56 (1970): 141-71. Murray, Oswyn “The ‘Quinquennium Neronis’ and the Stoics.” Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 14, no. 1 (1965): 41-61. Murray, Penelope. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 101 (1981): 87-100. Myers, Nancy. “Cicero’s (S)Trumpet: Roman Women and the Second Philippic.” Rhetoric Review 22, no. 4 (2003): 337-352. Nagy, Gregory. “The ‘Professional Muse’ and Models of Prestige in Ancient Greece.” Cultural Critique 12 (1989): 133-143. Nails, Debra. The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002. Nais, D. “The Shrewish Wife of Socrates.” Echoes du Monde Classique/Classical Views 4, no. 1 (1985): 97-9. Nussbaum, Martha C. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Navia, Luis E. Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996. ______. Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World. Amherst: Humanity Books, 2005. Neyrey, Jerome. “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honor,” in Modelling Early Christianity. Edited by Philip Esler, 139-59. New York: Routledge, 1995. ______. Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of his Letters. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. ______. Render to God: New Testament Understanding of the Divine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.
462 Ng, Esther Yue L. “Phoebe as Prostatis.” Trinity Journal 25 (2004): 3-13. Nguyen, Henry T. Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus and Valerius Maximus V. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Neumann, Harry. “Diotima’s Concept of Love.” The American Journal of Philology 86, no. 1 (1965): 33-59. Neusner, Jacob. “Comparing Judaisms.” History of Religions 18 (1978-79): 177-91. ______. “E. P. Sanders Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.” In Ancient Judaism: Debates and Disputes, edited by W. S. Green, 73-95. Brown Judaic Studies 64. Chico, CA: Scholars, Press, 1994. ______. Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E.P. Sanders. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. ______. “Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah.” Scottish Journal of Theology 44 (1991): 73-95. ______. and Bruce Chilton. In Quest of the Historical Pharisees. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. ______. “The Use of Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of Paul.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, edited by W. S. Green, 2:43-63. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Niccum, C. “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor. 14.34-5.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 242-55. Neirynck, Frans. “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus.” In Apôtre Paul: Personnalite, Style et Conception du Ministere, edited by A. Vanhoy, 265-321. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 73. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986. Neirynck, Frans. “The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by Reimund Bieringer, 141-176. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. van Nijf, Onno. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Nilsson, Martin. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. München: Beck, 1955. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Eros and Ethical Norms: Philosophers Respond to a Cultural Dilemma.” In The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola, 32753. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Nussbaum, Martha C. “The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus.” In The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola, 283-326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
463 ______. and Rosalind Hursthouse. “Plato on Commensurability and Desire.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 58 (1984): 55-96. Nutton, Vivian. Ancient Medicine. London: Routledge, 2005. Nye, Andrea. “The Hidden Host: Irigaray and Diotima at Plato’s Symposium.” Hypatia 3, no. 3, French Feminist Philosophy (1989): 45-61. Oates, Whitney J. The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers: The Complete Extant Writings of Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius. New York: Modern, 1994. Odell-Scott, D. W. “Editorial Dilemma: The Interpolation of 1 Cor 14.34-35 in the Western Manuscripts of D, G, and 88.” Biblical Theological Bulletin 30 (2000): 68-74. Oh-Young, Kwon. “Discovering the Characteristics of collegia: colegia sodalicia and collegia tenuiorum in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and 15.” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 32 no. 2 (2010): 166-182. Oikonomedes, A. “A New Inscription from Vergina and Eurydice Mother of Philip II.” Ancient World 7 ( 1983): 52-54. Oksenberg, Amélie Rort, ed. Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Berkeley: University of California Press: 1996. Økland, Jorunn. Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Olbricht, Thomas. “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique.” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 108-24. Novum Testamentum Supplement 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Olbricht, Thomas. “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique.” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 108-24. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1999. Oliensis, Ellen. “The Erotics of amicitia: Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace.” In Roman Sexualities, edited by Marilynn Skinner and Judith P. Hallett, 151-71. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Oliver, James H. “Arrian and the Gellii of Corinth.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 11 (1970): 335-7. Oliver, James H. “The Empress Plotina and the Sacred Thymelic Synod.” Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 24, no. 1 (1975): 125-128. Olson, Kelly. Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-presentation and Society. London: Routledge, 2008.
464 Olson, Kelly. “Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity,” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure, 186-206. Madison: University of Wisconson Press, 2006. O’Mahony, Kieran J., Pauline Persuasion: A Sounding in 2 Corinthians 8-9. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000. O’Rourke, John J. “Hypotheses regarding 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1958): 292-298. Osborn, Eric. “Arguments for Faith in Clement of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 48, no. 1 (1994): 1-24. Osborne, Grant R. Romans. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Osiek, Carolyn. “Diakonos and Prostatis: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity,” Hervormde teologiese studies 61, no. 1 (2005): 347-370. Osiek, Carolyn and Margaret Y. MacDonald. A Women’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. Oster, Richard E. “Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7,1-5, 8,10, 11,2-16, 12,14-26,” Zeitschrift für die neuetetamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 83, no. 1 (1992): 52-73. Oster, Richard. “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4.” New Testament Studies 34, no. 4 (1988): 481-505. Owen, G. E. L. “The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues.” The Classical Quarterly, n.s. 3, no. 1/2 (1953): 79-95. Packman, Z. M. “Feminine Role Designations in the Comedies of Plautus.” The American Journal of Philology 120, no. 2 (1999): 245-58. ______. “Undesirable Company: The Categorisation of Women in Roman Law,” Scholia 3 (1994): 94-106 Padgett, A. “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.”Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20 (1984): 6986. Page, D. L. “A Note on Corinna.” The Classical Quarterly, n.s. 7, no. 1/2 (1957): 109112. ______. Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1955. Pagels, E. H. “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 538-549.
465 Pallas, Demetre I., Seraphin Charitonidis and Jacques Venencie. “Inscriptions.” Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 83, no. 2 (1954): 496-508. Parker, Francis H. The Story of Western Philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967. Parker, Charles Pomeroy. “Musonius the Etruscan.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 7 (1896): 123-137. Parker, Holt N. “Women Doctors in Greece, Rome, and the Byzantine Empire.” In Women Healers and Physicians: Climbing a Long Hill, edited by Lilian R. Furst, 131-50. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1997. ______. “Sulpicia, the Auctor de Sulpicia, and the Authorship of 3.9 and 3.11 of the Corpus Tibullianum.” Helios 21 (1994): 39-62. Patrick, John. Clement of Alexandria. London: Blackwood, 1914. Paton, W. R., ed., The Greek Anthology. London: Heinemann, 1908. Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. Payne, Philip B. “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5.” New Testament Studies, 41 no 2 (1995): 240-262 Payne, Philip B. “Ms 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14:34-35.” New Testament Studies, 44 no 1 (1998): 152-158. Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Payne, P. B. and P. Canart, “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus.” Novum Testametum 42 (2000): 105-13. Peck, A. L. “Plato’s Parmenides: Some Suggestions for Its Interpretation.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 3, no. 3/4 (1953): 126-150. Pembroke, Simon. “List of the Matriarchs: A Study of the Inscriptions of Lycia,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8, no. 3 (1965): 217-47. ______. “Women in Charge: The Function of Alternatives in Early Greek Tradition and the Ancient Idea of Matriarchy.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967): 1-35. Penella, Robert J. “Philostratus’ Letter to Julia Domna.” Hermes 107, no. 2 (1979): 161168. Perriman, C. “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of ‘head’ in 1 Cor. 11:3.” Journal of Theological Studies 45, no. 2 (1994): 602-22.
466 Peters, Greg. “Spiritual Marriage in Early Christianity: 1 Cor 7:25-38 in Modern Exegesis and the Earliest Church.” Trinity Journal n.s. 23, no. 2 (2002): 211-224. Pharr, Clyde. “The Interdiction of Magic in Roman Law.” Transactions of the American Phililogical Association 63 (1932): 269-95. Pfeiffer, R. History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1968. Pfitzner, Victor C. Paul and the Agon motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Pfuhl, E. and H. Mobius. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1977. Philip, J. A. “Aristotle’s Monograph on Pythagoras.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 94 (1963): 185-98. ______. Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreanism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966. ______. “Aristotle’s Sources for Pythagorean Doctrine.” Pheonix 17, no. 4 (1963): 25165. Phillip, Thomas E. Acts within Diverse Frames of Reference. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009. Phipps, W. E. “Is Paul’s Attitude Towards Sexual Relations Contained in 1 Cor 7:1.” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 125-30. Picard, Ch. “La donation de safran en l’honneur de la Corinthienne Junia Theodora. Décret de la Confédération lycienne.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 2 (1962): 95-97. Piérart, Michael. “The Common Oracle of the Milesians and the Argives (Hdt. 6.19 and 77).” In Herodotus and his World, edited by Peter Derow and Robert Parker, 27596. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pitcher, R. A. “The Hole in the Hypothesis: Pliny and Martial Reconsidered,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 52, no. 5 (1999): 554-561. Podlecki, Anthony J. Pericles and his Circle. London: Routledge, 1998. Poliakoff, M. B. Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Pomeroy, Sarah B. Advice to the Bride and Groom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ______. “The Study of Women in Antiquity: Past, Present, and Future.” American Journal of Philosophy 112, no. 2 (1991): 263-8.
467 ______. Spartan Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ______. “Supplementary Notes on Erinna.” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978): 20. ______. “Technikai kai mousikai: The Education of Women in the Fourth Century and in the Hellenistic Period.” American Journal of Ancient History 2 (1977). ______. Women in Hellenistic Egypt from Alexandria to Cleopatra. New York: Schocken Books, 1984. Popkin, Richard H., ed. Columbia History of Western Philosophy. New York: Columbia, 1998. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament. Boston: Brill, 2002. ______., ed. The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. Novum Testamentum Supplement 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ______., ed. Paul and his Opponents, SBL Pauline Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ______. “Paul as an Epistolographer and Rhetorician?” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 222-48. Novum Testamentum Supplement 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Poynton, J. B. “Roman Education.” Greece & Rome 4, no. 10 (1934): 1-12. Prioreschi, Plino. A History of Medicine. vol 2, 2nd ed. Omaha: Horatius, 1996. Purdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Purnell, George Roberts. A Study of Roman Literary Patronage: with Special Reference to the Messalla Circle. Stanford: Stanford University, 1930. Quinn, Kenneth. “The Poet and his Audience in the Augustan Age.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. vol. 2.30.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 75-180. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1982. de Quiroga, . “Freedmen Social Mobility in Roman Italy.” Historia 44, no. 3 (1995): 326-348. Radin, Max. “Apotheosis.” Classical Review 30, no. 2 (1916): 44-6. Rajak, T. and D. Noy. “Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the GrecoJewish Synagogue.” Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 75-93. Rajak, Tessa. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
468 Ramsaran, Rollin A. “More Than an Opinion : Paul’s Rhetorical Maxim in First Corinthians 7:25-26.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1995): 531-541. Raphals, Lisa. Sharing the Light:Representations of Women and Virtue in Early China. Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Rapisarda, Carmelo A. Censorini De de natali liber ad Q. Caerellium. Bologna: Patron, 1991. Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Roman Women: Their History and Habits. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. Rawson, Elizabeth. Cicero: A Portrait. London: Allen Lane, 1975. Rayor, Diane J. Sappho’s Lyre: Archaic Lyric and Women Poets of Ancient Greece. Berkley: University of California Press, 1991. Reale, Giovanni. A History of Ancient Philosophy: The schools of the Imperial Age. Edited and translated by John R. Catan. New York: State University of New York Press, 1990. Reckford, Kenneth J. “Horace and Maecenas.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 90 (1959): 195-208. Reichmann, Felix. “The Book Trade at the Time of the Roman Empire.” Library Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1938): 40-7. Reimer, Andy M. Miracle and Magic: A Study in the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. London: Sheffield, 2002. Reinhold, Meyer. “Marcus Agrippa’s Son-in-Law P. Quinctilius Varus.” Classical Philology 67, no. 2 (1972): 119-121. Reynolds, J. and R. Tannenbaum. Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 12. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writers: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. Richardson, Peter. “Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John Kloppenborg, 90-109. London : Routledge, 1996. ______. “Judgment in sexual matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.” Novum testamentum 25, no. 1 (1983): 37-58. Richlin, Amy. “Sulpicia the Satirist.” Classical World 86, no. 2 (1992): 125-140.
469 Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. “An Issue of Methodology: Anakreon, Perikles, Xanthippos.” American Journal of Archaeology 102, no. 4 (1998): 717-738. Riesner, Rainer. Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, and Theology. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1998. Riggsby, Andrew M. Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Riginos, Alice Swift. Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Riley, Mark T. “The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates.” Phoenix 34, no. 1 (1980): 55-68. Rist, John M. Epicurus, An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938. ______. “Plutarch’s ‘Amatorius’: A Commentary on Plato’s Theories of Love? Classical Quarterly, n.s. 51, no. 2 (2001): 557-575. Rist, Martin. Review of Plutarch und Das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti by Helge Almqvist. Journal of Biblical Literature 66, no. 3. (1947): 301-2. Rives, J. “Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians.” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995): 65-85. Robbins, Vernon. Review of Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature by Hans Dieter Betz. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47, no. 4. (1979): 666. Robert, J. and L. “ no. 213.
.”
69 (1956), 152-53,
Robert, L. “ ,” in philologiques (Paris: Champion, 1938), 128-33. ______. Opera Minora Selecta: Epigraphie et antiquités grecques. 7 vols. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1969-1990. Roberts, R. L. “The meaning of chorizo and douloo in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17.” Restoration Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1965): 179-184. Robinson, David. Sappho and Her Influence. London: G. G. Harrap, 1924. Robinson, Rodney P. “The Roman School Teacher and His Reward.” Classical Weekly 15, no. 8 (1921): 57-61. Robinson, O. F. The Sources of Roman Laws: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians. London: Routledge, 1997. Roebuck, Carl. “Some Aspects of Urbanization in Corinth.” Hesperia 41, no. 1 (1972): 96-127.
470 Roessel, David. “The Significance of the Name Cerinthus in the Poems of Sulpicia.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 120 (1990): 243-25. Roller, Duane W. “Gaius Memmius: Patron of Lucretius.” Classical Philology 65, no. 4 (1970): 246-248. Romano, David Gilman. “City Planning, Centuriation, and Land Division in Roman Corinth: Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis & Colonia Iulia Flavia Augusta Corinthiensis.” Corinth 20, Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996 (2003): 279-301. ______. “Roman Surveyors in Corinth.” Proceedings of the American Philological Society 150, no. 1 (2006): 62-85. Romano, Irene Bald. “A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146-44 B. C.).” Hesperia 63, no. 1 (1994): 57-104. van Roon, A. “Relation between Christ and the Wisdom of God according to Paul.” Novum Testamentum 16, no. 3 (1974): 207-239. Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg. “As Diotima Saw Socrates.” Arion 4, no. 3 (1997) Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Roskam, G. On the Path to Virtue. The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and Its Reception in (Middle-)Platonism. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Rothschild, Clare K. Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 2.175. Tübingen: Mohr, 2004. Rotroff, Susan I. and Robert D. Lamberton. Women in the Agora. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2006. Rousselle, Aline. Porneia. Translated by Felicia Pheasant. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Ruden, Sarah. Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time. Toronto: Pantheon Books, 2010. Runia, David T. “Why does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo ‘The Phythagorean?’” Vigiliae Christianae 49, no. 1 (1995): 1-22. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Rutherford Schuster, 1945. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. “Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.” Classical Antiquity 13, no. 1 (1994): 56-74.
471 Rutledge, H.C. “Herodes the Great: Citizen of the World.” Classical Journal 56, no. 3 (1960): 97-109. Rutherford, Ian. “Aristodama and the Aetolians: An Itinerant Poetess and her Agenda.” In Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and PanHellenism, edited by Richard Hunter and Ian Rutherford, 237-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Chrysoula. “ 0Eu’rudi/ka Sippa Eu0kli/a?0” in Amhto/j: Timhtiko/j gia ton KatQhghth/ Mano/lh Andro/niko. Thessaloniki, 1987. ______. “In the Shadow of History: The Emergence of Archaeology.” Annual of the British School at Athens 94 (1999): 353-367. Salapata, Gina. “Hero Warriors from Corinth and Lakonia.” Hesperia 66, no. 2 (1997): 245-260. Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage Under the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ______. “Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 34, no. 1 (1984): 195-205. ______. “Martial on Patronage and Literature.” Classical Quarterly 33, no. 1 (1983), 246-57. Salmon, J. B. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City until 338BC. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1997. Sampley, J. Paul. “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians.” In Philodemus and the New Testament World, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn S. Holland, 295-321. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Sandbach, F. H. Aristotle and the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1985 Sanders, E. P. Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ______. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patters of Religion. London: SCM, 1977. ______. “Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 33 (1978): 175-87. ______. “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism.” In St. Paul Among the Philosophers, edited by John D. Caputo and Linda Martin Alcoff, 74-90. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ______. “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism.” In Donum Gentilicum: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, edited by C. K. Barrett, E. Bammel and W.D. Davies, 103-26. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1978.
472 Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13. Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul, One of the Prophets?: A Contribution to the Apostle’s SelfUnderstanding. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 2.45. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. Santirocco, Matthew. “The Maecenas Odes.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 114 (1984): 241-53. Scanlon, Thomas. “Virgineum Gymnasium. Spartan Females and Early Greek Athletics.” In Archaeology of the Olympics, edited by W. Raschke, 185-216. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. Schachter, Albert and William J. Slater, “A Proxeny Decree from Koroneia, Boiotia in Honour of Zotion Son of Zotion, of Ephesos.” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 163 (2007): 81-95. Schachter, Marc D. Voluntary Servitude and the Erotics of Friendship from Classical Antiquity to Early Modern France. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Schoedel, William R. Review of Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paranetische Parallelen. Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti by Hans D. Betz. Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 3. (1965): 318-321. ______. “Review: Three Recent Works on Patristics and Early Christian Literature.” Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature by William C. Grese, Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature edited by Hans Dieter Betz. History of Religions 20, no. 2. (1981): 345-6. Schmidt, Steffen W. et al, eds. Friends Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Schottroff, Luise. “Holiness and Justice: Exegetical Comments on 1 Corinthians 11.1734.” Translated by Brian McNeil. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23, no. 79 (2000): 51-60. ______. Let the Oppressed Go Free: Feminist Perspectives on the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Schowalter, Daniel N. and Steven J. Friesen, eds. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. ______. Seneca in Gegensatz zu Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr, 1936.
473 Schulz, Ray R. “A Case for ‘President’ Phoebe in Romans 16:2.” Lutheran Theological Journal 24, no. 3 (1990): 124-127. Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 5 vols. Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-1987. Schweizer, Eduard. “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 3 (1989): 455-68. Schussler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. ______. “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History.” Word and World 6, no 4 (1986): 420-433. ______. “Phoebe.” Bibel Heute 79 (1984): 162–64. ______. “The Quilting of Women’s History: Phoebe of Cenchreae.” In Embodied Love: Sensuality and Relationship as Feminist Values, edited by Paula M. Cooey, Sharon A. Farmer, and Mary Ellen Ross, 35-49. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. ______. “Women in the Pre-Pauline and Pauline Churches.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 33 no. 3-4 (1978): 153-166. Scranton, R. L. “The Corinth of the Apostle Paul.” Emory University Quarterly 5 (1949): 72-5. Scullard, H. H. “Scipio Aemilianus and Roman Politics.” Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960): 59-64. Sear, Frank. Roman Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Seboldt, Roland H. A. “Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.” Concordia Theological Monthly 30, no. 2 (1959): 103-119. Sedley, D. “Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, n.s. 203, no 23 (1977): 74-120. Setälä, P. and R. Berg, et al, eds. Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002. Sevenster, Jan N. Paul and Seneca. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Shaw, Brent D. “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past & Present 105 (1984): 3-52. Shero, L. R. “Xenophon’s Portrait of a Young Wife.” Classical Weekly 26, no. 3 (1932): 17-21.
474 Sihvola, Juha. “Two Women of Samos.” In The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola, 222-82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Sharples, R. W. “Dicaearchus on the Soul and Divination.” In Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion, edited by William W. Fortenbaug and Eckhart Schütrumpf, 143-74. Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 10. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Sherwin-White, A. N. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1985. ______. “Pliny, the Man and His Letters.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser. 16, no. 1 (1969): 7690. Sherwin-White, A. N. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Shi, Wenhua. Paul’s Message of the Cross as Body Language. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchgen zum Neuen Testament 2.254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Sider, David. The Library of the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005. deSilva, David. “Re-writing ‘Household’ in the Early Church.” Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 85-9. Siniossoglou, Niketas. Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Sissa, Giulia. Sex and Sexuality in the Ancient World. Translated by George Staunton New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Skinner, Marilyn B. “Briseis, the Trojan Women, and Erinna.” Classical World 75, no. 5 (1982): 265-269. ______. “Corinna of Tanagra and Her Audience.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 2, no. 1 (1983): 9-20. ______. “Homer’s Mother.” In Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Ellen Greene, 91-111. Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 2005. ______. “Ladies’ Day at the Art Institute: Theocritus, Herodas and the Gendered Gaze.” n Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Ancient Greek Literature and Society, edited by André Lardinois and Laura McClure, 201-22. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. ______. “Nossis Thēlyglōssos.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, edited by Sarah B. Pomeroy, 21-47. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. ______. “Sapphic Nossis.” Arethusa 22, no. 1 (1989): 5-18.
475 ______. Sexuality in Greece and Roman Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Skalitzky, Rachel I. “Horace on Travel (Epist. 1.11).” Classical Journal 68, no. 4 (1973): 316-321. Smallwood, E. Mary. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Smith, Dennis. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Smith, E. W. Joseph and Asenath and Early Christian Literature: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California, 1974. Smith, Martin Ferguson. “Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda: Discovered and Rediscovered.” American Journal of Archaeology 74, no. 1 (1971): 51-62. ______. “Fifty-Five New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” Anaotlian Studies 28 (1978): 39-92. ______. “Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 24.” American Journal of Philology 99, no. 3 (1978): 329-331. ______. “Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragments 122-124.” Anatolian Studies 34 (1984): 43-57. ______. Diongenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription. La Scula di Epicuro, Suppl. 1. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1993. ______. “Eight New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” Anatolian Studies 29, (1979): 69-89. ______. “Elementary, My Dear Lycians: A Pronouncement on Physics from Diogenes of Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 50 (2000): 133-137. ______. “Excavations at Oinoanda 1997: The New Epicurean Texts.” Anatolian Studies 48 (1998): 125-170. ______. “Fresh Thoughts on Diogenes of Oinoanda fr. 68.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133 (2000): 51-55. ______. “The Introduction to Diogenes of Oinoanda’s ‘Physics.’” Classical Quartery, n.s. 50, no. 1 (2000): 238-246. ______. “New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” American Journal of Archaeology 75, no. 4 (1971): 357-389. ______. “New Readings in the Demostheneia Inscription from Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 44 (1994): 59-64.
476 ______. “New Readings in the Text of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 22, no. 1 (1972): 159-162. ______. “ΝΗΣΣΟΣ at Oinoanda in Lycia: Misspelling or Genuine Variant.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000): 127-130. ______. “In Praise of the Simple Life: A New Fragment of Diogenes of Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 54, (2004): 35-46. ______. “Two New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 92 (1972): 147-55. Smith, Morton. “Paul’s Arguments as Evidence of the Christianity from Which He Diverged.” Harvard Theological Review 79, no. 1/3 (1986): 254-60. ______. “De Superstitione.” In Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, edited by Hans D. Betz, 1-35. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Smit, Joop F. M. “‘What is Apollos? What is Paul?’ in Search for the Coherence of First Corinthians 1:10-4:21.” Novum Testamentum 44, no. 3 (2002): 231-251. Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Songer, Harold. “Problems Arising from the Worship of Idols: 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1.” Review & Expositor 80, no. 3 (1983): 363-75. Snyder, Jane McIntosh. “Lucretius and the Status of Women.” Classical Bulletin 53 (1976): 17-20. ______. “Public Occasion and Private Passion in the Lyrics of Sappho of Lesbos.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, edited by Sarah B. Pomeroy, 1-19. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. ______. The Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989. Spawforth, Antony J. S. “Roman Corinth: The Formation of a Colonial Elite.” Proceedings of the International Colloquium organized by the Finnish Institute and the Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens 7-9 September 1993. Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1996. Spaeth, John. “Cicero the Poet.” Classical Journal (1931): 500-12. Sperduti, Alice. “The Divine Nature of Poetry in Antiquity.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 81 (1950): 209-40. Stambaugh, John E. and David Balch. The New Testament in its Social Environment. Edited by Wayne Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986. Standing, Giles. “The Claudian Invasion of Britain and the Cult of Victoria Britannica.” Britannia 34 (2003): 281-288.
477 Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul and Homer: Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century CE.” Novum Testamentum 32, no. 1 (1990): 48-78. Stark, Rodney. “Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women.” Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (1995): 229-244. Starr, Raymond J. “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World.” Classical Quarterly 37 (1987): 213–23. Stearns, John. “Lucretius and Memmius.” Classical Weekly 25, no. 9 (1931): 67-68. Steel, Catherine E. W. Roman Oratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Classical Association, 2006. Stern-Gillet, Suzanne and Kevin Corrigan, eds. Reading Ancient Texts, Volume II: Aristotle and Neoplatonism. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Stichele, Caroline Vander. “Is Silence Golden? Paul and Women’s Speech in Corinth.” Louvain Studies 20 (1995): 241-53. Still, Todd D. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 183. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 4 (2006): 781-795. Stirewalt, M. Luther, Jr. Paul, the Letter Writer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ______. Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney. Scholars: Atlanta, 1993. Stowers, Stanley K. “Does Pauline Christianity Resemble a Hellenistic Philosophy.” In Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, edited by Troels Engberg-Pederson, 81-102. Westminster: John Knox, 2001. ______. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letters to the Romans. Chicago: Scholars, 1981. ______., ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. ______. and Sean A. Adams, eds., Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, Pauline Studies (Past) 6. Brill: Leiden, 2009. ______., ed. Paul and his Opponents. Pauline Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ______., ed. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
478 ______. “Social Status, Public Speaking, and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” Novum Testamentum 26, no. 1 (1984): 59-82. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster, 1994. ______. and Donald Alfred Hagner. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001. Sturgeon, Mary C. “Dedications of Roman Theaters.” In Hesperia Supplements 33, ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, edited by A. Chapin, 411-29. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Sumney, Jerry. Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements 40. Shefflield: JSOT, 1990. Swaddling, J. The Ancient Olympic Games. 3rd ed. London: The British Museum Press, 2004. Swan, P. M. “A Consular Epicurean under the Early Principate.” Phoenix 30, no. 1 (1976): 54-60. Swancutt, Diana. “The Disease of Effemination.” In New Testament Masculinities, ed. Stephen Moore and Janice Anderson, 223-41. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Syme, R. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu. Novum Testamentum Supplements 107. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Taylor, Joan E. Jewish Women Philosophers of First Century Alexandria. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Taylor, Justin. Pythagoreans and Essenes: Structural Parallels. Paris: Peeters, 2004. Taylor, Lily Ross. “The Equestrian Career of Horace.” American Journal of Philology 46, no. 2 (1925): 164-70. ______. and Allen B. West. Corinth, 8.2, Latin inscriptions, 1896-1926. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. Taylor, Nicholas. “The Social Nature of Conversion.” In Modelling Early Christianity, edited by Philip Esler, 124-32. New York: Routledge, 1995. Tell, Håkan. “Sages at the Games: Intellectual Displays and Dissemination of Wisdom in Ancient Greece.” Classical Antiquity 26, no. 2 (2007): 249–55. Tellegen-Couperus, Olga. A Short History of Roman Law. London: Routledge, 1993.
479 Temporini, Hildegard and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1972-. Terry, Ralph. “An Anlaysis of Certain Features of the Discourse in the New Testament Book of 1 Corinthians.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX. Thesleff, Holger. An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. Ǻbo: Ǻbo Academi, 1961. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. ______. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 65-84. ______. “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25, no. 3 (2003): 371-91. Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994. Thilly, Frank. A History of Philosophy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1957. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: Paternoster Press, 2000. Thom, Johan. “‘Don’t Walk on the Highways’: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Christian Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 1 (1994): 93-112. ______. “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras: Its Literary Composition and Religiohistorical Significance.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1990. ______. “‘To Show Difference by Comparison:’ The Neuen Wettstein and Cleanthes’ Hymn.” In Reading Religions in the Ancient World: Essays Presented to Robert McQueen Grant on his 90th Birthday, edited by David E. Aune and Robert Darling Young, 81-100. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Thompson, Michael B. The New Perspective on Paul. Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002. Tiede, David L. Review of Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament by G. Petzke. Journal of Biblical Literature 90, no. 3 (1973): 465-7. Tomson, Peter J. “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of his Law Teaching in 1Cor 7,” Paul and the Mosaic Law: Tübingen Studies and Earliest Christianity and Judaism, edited by J. D. G. Dunn, 251-270. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
480 Townsley, Gillian. “Gender Trouble in Corinth: Que(e)rying Constructs of Gender in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Bible & Critical Theory 2, no. 2 (2006). Toynbee, Jocelyn M. C. “Dictators and Philosophers in the First Century A. D.” Greece & Rome 13, no. 38/39 (1944): 43-58. Treggiari, Susan. “Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?” In Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson, 3146. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1991. ______. “Jobs for Women.” American Journal of Ancient History 1 (1976): 76-104. ______. “Lower Class Women in the Roman Economy.” Florilegium 1 (1979) 65-86. ______. Roman Freedmen During the Late Republic. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1969. ______. Terentia, Tullia and Publilia: the Women of Cicero’s Family. London: Routledge, 2007. Tuana, Nancy. Woman and the History of Philosophy. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1992. Tucker, J. Brian. “Baths, Baptism, and Patronage: The Continuing Role of Roman Social Identity in Corinth.” In Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation, edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker, 73-88. Library of New Testament Studies 428. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Turner, E. G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Turner, John. Review of Aelius Aristides and the New Testament by P. W. Van Der Horst. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 48, no. 1 (1980): 116-117. Tyson, Joseph B. “From History to Rhetoric and Back: Assessing New Trends in Acts Studies.” In Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative in Greco-Roman Discourse, edited by Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 23-42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Van Der Horst, Peter W. “Chariton and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum.” Novum Testamentum 25, no 4. (1983): 348-355. ______. “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30, no. 1. (1964): 17-33. ______. “Cornutus and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum.” Novum Testamentum 23, no. 2 (1981): 165-72. ______. “Hierocles the Stoic and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum.” Novum Testamentum 17, no. 2. (1975): 156-60. ______. “Macrobius and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum.” Novum Testamentum 15, no. 3 (1973): 220-232.
481 ______. “Musonius Rufus and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum,” Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (1974): 306-315.
______. “Pseudo-Phocylides Revisited.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 3 (1988): 3-30. Van der Stockt, Luc. “‘Never the Twain Shall Meet?’ Plutarch and Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius: Some Themes and Techniques.” In Theios Sophistes Electronic: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, edited by Kristoffel Demoen and Danny Praet, 187-210. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Van Unnik, W. C. “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83, no. 1 (1964): 17-33. ______. “‘Den Geist loschet nicht aus’ I Thessalonicher V 19.” Novum Testamentum 10, no. 4 (1968): 255-269. ______. “Words Come to Life: The Work for the ‘Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti.’” Novum Testamentum 13, no. 3. (1971): 199-216. ______. “‘Tiefer Friede’ 1. Klemens 2,2.” Vigiliae Christianae 24, no. 4 (1970): 261279. Vardi, Amiel. “Gellius against the Professors.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 137 (2001): 41-54. Valantasis, Richard. “Demons, Adversaries, Devils, Fishermen: The Asceticism of ‘Authoritative Teaching’ (NHL, VI, 3) in the Context of Roman Asceticism.” Journal of Religion 81, no. 4 (2001): 549-65. Venit, Marjorie Susan “Women in Their Cups.” Classical World 92, no. 2 (1998): 117130. Vidén, Gunhild. Women in Roman Literature: Attitudes of Authors under the Early Empire. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 57. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1993. Vlachos, Chris. The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Vlastos, Gregory. “Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge.” Philosophy Quarterly 35, no. 138 (1985): 1-31. De Vogel, C. J. Greek Philosophy, vol. III: The Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden: Brill, 1959. De Vogel, C. J. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956. de Vos, Craig Steven. “Stepmothers, Concubines and the Case of PORNEIA in 1 Corinthians 5.” New Testament Studies 44, no 1 (1998): 104-114.
482 Vos, Johan. “Rhetoric and Theology in the Letters of Paul.” In Paul and Rhetoric, edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe, 161-179. London, T&T Clark, 2010. van der Waerdt, P. A. “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 37, no. 2 (1987): 402-422. Waithe, Mary Ellen. Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987. ______. “On Not Teaching the History of Philosophy.” Hypatia 4, no. 1, The History of Women in Philosophy (1989): 132-138. Walbank, Mary E. Hoskins. “Aspects of Corinthian Coinage in the Late 1st and early 2nd Centuries A.C.” Corinth 20, Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996 (2003): 337349. ______. “What’s in a Name? Corinth under the Flavians.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Epigrapik 139 (2002): 251-264. Walker Jr., William O. “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women.” Journal Biblical Literature 94, no. 1 (1975): 94-110. ______. “The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources.” New Testament Studies 54 no 4 (2008): 479-495. ______. “The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 75-88. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Housefuls.” In Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, edited by David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, 3-18. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ______. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. ______., ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge, 1989. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistle to the Thessalonians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Ward, Julie K., ed. Feminism and Ancient Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1996. Waerdt, P. A. “The Justice of the Epircurean Wise Man.” Classical Quarterly 37, no. 2 (1987): 402-22. Warren, James. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Warren, Karen. An Unconventional History of Western Philosophy: Conversations Between Men and Women Philosophers. Plymouth, UK: Rowan & Littlefeld, 2009.
483 Warren, Mary Anne. “Feminist Archeology: Uncovering Women’s Philosophical History.” Hypatia 4, no. 1, The History of Women in Philosophy (1989): 155159. Wassermann, Emma. “Paul Among the Philosophers: The Case of Sin in Romans 6-8.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30, no. 4 (2008): 387-415. Wanamaker, Charles A. “Connubial Sex and the Avoidance of Porneia: Paul’s Rhetorical Argument in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.” Scriptura 90 (2005): 839-849. Waters, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004. Waters, Larry J. “Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles.” Bibliotheca sacra 167, no. 668 (2010): 423-41. Watson, Alan. “Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.” Journal of Roman Studies 62, (1972): 100-105. Watson, Duane. “The Contributions and Limitations of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory for Constructing the Rhetorical and Historical Situations of a Pauline Epistle.” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 123-51. Novum Testamentum Supplement 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Watson, Francis Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Watson, Patricia. A. Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny and Reality. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Weaver, P. R. C. “Social Mobility in the Early Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Imperial Freedmen and Slaves.” Past & Present 37 (1967): 3-20. Webb, Clement C. J. A History of Philosophy. London: Williams & Norgate, 1915. Weber, Alfred. History of Philosophy. Translated by Frank Thilly. New York: Charles Schribner, 1896. Weigel, Richard D. “Roman Colonial Commissioners and Prior Service.” Hermes 113, no. 2 (1985): 224-231. Weir, Robert G. A. Roman Delphi and its Pythian Games. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1306. Oxford: Hadrian Books, 2004. Welborn, L. L. “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics,” JBL 106, no. 1 (1987): 101-3. ______. “Mōros genesthō: Paul’s Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1-4.” Biblical Interpretation 10, no. 4 (2002): 420-435.
484 ______. Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. Wells, Benjamin W. “Trade and Travel in the Roman Empire.” Classical Journal 19, no. 2 (1923): 67-78. Wells, Collin. The Roman Empire. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Wenham, David. “Paul’s use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples.” In Source: Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, edited by David Wenham, 7-37. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984. West, Allen Brown, et al, “Latin Inscriptions, 1896-1926.” Corinth 8, no. 2, Latin Inscriptions, 1896-1926 (1931): iii-v+vii-ix+xi+xiii-xiv+1-141+143-145+147171. West, Allen B. “Notes on Achaean Prosopography and Chronology.” Classical Philology 23, no. 3 (1928). West, M. L. “Corinna.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 20, no. 2 (1970): 277-287. ______. “Dating Corinna.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 40, no. 2 (1990): 553-557. ______. “Erinna.” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 25 (1977): 95-119. Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. ______. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Wettstein, J. J. Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum mss., edition aliarum, versionum, et patrum nec non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis historiam et vim verborum illustrante. Amstelaedami: Ex Officina Dommeriana, 1751-2. Wheatley, Alan B. Patronage in Early Christianity: Its Use and Transformation from Jesus to Paul of Samosata. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011. Whelan, Caroline F. “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 67-85. White, F. C. “Love and Beauty in Plato’s Symposium.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 109 (1989): 149-57. White, John. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. White, L. Michael “Social Authority in the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4.1-16,” Restoration Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1987): 209-28.
485 ______. ‘Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence.” Harvard Theological Review 90, no. 1 (1997): 23-58. White, Peter. “Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome.” The Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978): 74-92. ______. “The Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage,' Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79 (1975): 265-300 Whitmarsh, Tim. “Greek and Roman in Dialogue: The Pseudo-Lucianic Nero.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 119 (1999): 142-160. Wicker, Kathleen O’Brien. “Mulierum virtutes.” In Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and the New Testament, edited by Hans Dieter Betz, 106-35. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Wilder, Kathleen. “Women Philosophers in the Ancient World: Donning the Mantle.” Hypatia 1, no. 1 (1986): 21-62l. Wiedemann, Thomas. “Children and Benefactors in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire.” POLIS. Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antiguedad Clásica 18 (2006): 163-186. Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale, 2003. ______. “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology.” In Catacombs and Colosseum: Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity, edited by Stephen Benko and O’Rourke, 268-91. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971. ______. Remembering the Christian Past. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Williams, Charles Kaufman, II. “The City of Corinth and Its Domestic Religion.” Hesperia 50, no. 4, Greek Towns and Cities: A Symposium (1981): 408-421. Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Williams, M. H. “The Structure of Roman Jewry re-considered – Were the Synagogues of Ancient Rome Homogeneous?” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104 (1994): 129-141. Wilson, Kenneth T. “Should Women Wear Headcoverings.” Bibliotheca sacra 148, no. 592 (1991): 442-462. Wimbush, Vincent L. Paul, the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Selfunderstanding According to 1 Corinthians 7. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987. Windisch. Hans. Paulus und Christus: Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher Verglich. Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 24. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1934. ______. Der zweite Korintherbrief. 9th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1970.
486 Winkler, John J. The Constraints of Desire: Essays in the Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge, 1989. Winter, Bruce. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ______. “1 Corinthians 7:6-7: A Caveat and a Framework for ‘the Sayings’ in 7:8-24.” Tyndale Bulletin 48, no. 1 (1997): 57-65. ______. ‘Favorinus.’ In The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, edited by B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke, 196-205. Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster, 1993. ______. “ Philodemus and Paul on u9po/krisij.” In Philodemus and the New Testament World, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn S. Holland, 323-42. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ______. “The Public Honoring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2.14-15.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 87-103. ______. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ______. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christains as Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ______. “The Toppling of Favorinus and Paul.” In Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White, 291-306. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wire, Antionette. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. ______. “Prophecy and Women Prophets in Corinth.” In Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: Essays in Honor of J. M. Robinson, edited by J. E. Goehring, et al., 134-150. Forum Fascicles 1. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990. Wirszubski, C. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome. Cambridge: Combridge Univ. Press, 1950. Wiseman, James. “Corinth and Rome 1: 228 BC-AD 267.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. vol. 2.7.1. Edited by Temporini, Hildegard and Wolfgang Haase, 438-548. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1979. Wiseman, James. “Excavations in Corinth, the Gymnasium Area, 1967-1968.” Hesperia 38, no. 1 (1969): 64-106. Wissowa, G. “Zur Geschichte des kapitolischen Agons.” In Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms 4, edited by L. Friedländer, 276-80. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1921.
487 Witherington, Bruce, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Witt, R. E. “The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria.” Classical Quarterly 25, no. 3/4 (1931): 195-204. DeWitt, Norman W. Epicurus and his Philosophy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1954. ______. St. Paul and Epicurus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1954. Wong, Eric K C. “The Deradicalization of Jesus’ Ethical Sayings in 1 Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 48, no. 2 (2002): 181-194. Woodhull, Magaret L. “Matronly Patrons in the Early Roman Empire.” In Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization, edited by Fiona McHardy and Eireann Marshall, 75-91. New York: Routledge, 2004. Wooten, Cecil W., ed. The Orator in Action and Theory in Greece and Rome: Essays in Honor of G. A. Kennedy. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ______. “Gospel and Theology in Galatians.” In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, edited by L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, 222–239. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. ______. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009. ______. “The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology.” In Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner, 205-36. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ______. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: the Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 26– 35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ______. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 618. ______. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. ______. “Redemption from the New Perspective.” In Redemption, edited by S.T. Davis, D. Kendall, and G. O’Collins, 69-100. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ______. “Romans and the Theology of Paul.” In Pauline Theology. vol. 3. Edited by David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, 30–67. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
488 Yarborough, O. Larry. Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Yeo, Cedric A. “The Founding and Function of Roman Colonies.” Classical World 52, no. 4 (1959): 104-107, 129-130. Yeo, Khiok-Khng. “Differentiation and Mutuality of Male-Female Relations in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Biblical Research 43 (1998): 7-21 ______. Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-cultural Hermeneutic. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Young, David C. A Brief History of the Olympic Games. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Zakopoulos, Athenagoras Ch. Plato and Saint Paul on Man: A Psychological, Philosophical, and Theological Study. Thessalonica: Melissa, 2002. Zanker, P. Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988.