Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:58:40.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Female Body as Social Space in 1 Timothy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2011

Adela Yarbro Collins
Adela Yarbro Collins
Affiliation:
102 Leete's Island Road, Guilford, CT 06437, USA. email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By means of his reception of Paul and Genesis, the author of 1 Timothy created a social space in which the autonomy of women, including control of their own bodies, is severely limited. The purpose of such discourse was to oppose Marcion's rejection of marriage and procreation. The letter thus advocates marriage as a virtual requirement for all Christians, especially ‘the younger widows’, who were probably virgins. Instead of propagating teaching and practices opposed by the author, these women ought to marry, bear children, and keep silent. The author shares certain values with elite Greeks, such as Plutarch, and with the Christian teacher Valentinus. Besides Marcion, the author also criticizes early gnostic teaching of the type found in the Secret Book according to John.

Keywords

reception of Paulmarriageleadership of womenMarcionApocryphon of JohnValentinus
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 155 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the idea that space is socially and ideologically constructed, see Horrell, David G., ‘Disciplining Performance and “Placing” the Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God (1 Tim 5,1–6,2)’, 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. Donfried, Karl Paul; Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 109–34Google Scholar and the literature cited in nn. 20–7. See also Newsom, Carol A., The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004)Google Scholar.

2 The classic study is Harrison, P. N., The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University, 1921)Google Scholar; see also Dibelius, Martin and Conzelmann, Hans, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 1–5Google Scholar; Collins, Raymond F., Letters that Paul did not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988) 88–131Google Scholar. Jens Herzer argues that 1 Timothy should be understood as a school-pseudepigraphon that serves to some degree as an identity marker; ‘Fiktion oder Täuschung? Zur Diskussion über die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe’, Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (ed. Frey, Jörg et al. ; WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 489–536Google Scholar [533–4]; see also Merz, Annette, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA/SUNT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Academic, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glaser, Timo, Paulus als Briefroman erzählt: Studien zum antiken Briefroman und seiner christlichen Rezeption in den Pastoralbriefen (NTOA/SUNT 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Manabu Tsuji argues, in contrast, that all three Pastoral Letters are forgeries; ‘Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha’, NTS 56 (2010) 253–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 1 Cor 7.8–9; see also 1 Cor 7.1, 28–35, 37–38, 40. For a discussion of the Corinthian pneumatics who valued sexual asceticism and Paul's nuanced response, see Gundry-Volf, Judith M., ‘Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)’, The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. Bieringer, R.; BEThL 125; Leuven: Leuven University and Peeters, 1996) 519–41Google Scholar.

4 1 Cor 7.2–7, 9; see also 1 Cor 7.28, 36, 38.

5 1 Cor 11.5, 13.

6 1 Cor 11.3 is a reading of Gen 1.26–27 if Hans Conzelmann is correct that Paul, in order to serve his rhetorical purpose, substitutes the word κɛϕαλή here for ɛἰκών. See Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975; German, ed. 1969) 182–4Google Scholar, 187–8.

7 1 Cor 11.7–9 appears to be a reading of both Gen 1.26–27 and Gen 2.18–25.

8 1 Cor 11.11–12.

9 1 Cor 14.26–40; quotation from 1 Cor 14.34–35. All translations from the Greek New Testament (NA27) are my own.

10 E.g., Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 246. He considered v. 33b to be part of the interpolated passage but notes that others have taken it with the previous sentence (241 n. 8).

11 Even if Conzelmann is right that the transposition of vv. 34–35 to follow v. 40 in some manuscripts is a secondary simplification (1 Corinthians, 246 n. 54), this evidence at least confirms the perception of some modern readers that these verses disrupt the context.

12 Some scholars argue that it was the other way around: the author of the interpolation used 1 Tim 2.11–13 in formulating the material inserted into 1 Cor 14: MacDonald, Dennis R., The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1983) 86–9Google Scholar; Pervo, Richard I., The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010) 46–8Google Scholar. For a critical history of scholarship, see Crüsemann, Marlene, ‘Unrettbar frauenfeindlich: Der Kampf um das Wort von Frauen in 1 Kor 14, (33b) 34–5 im Spiegel antijudaistischer Elemente der Auslegung’, Von der Wurzel getragen: christlich-feministische Exegese in Auseinandersetzung mit Antijudaismus (ed. Schottroff, Luise and Wacker, Marie-Theres; Biblical Interpretation Series 17; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 199–223Google Scholar.

13 Osiek, Carolyn and Balch, David L., Families in the New Testament World: Households and Household Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997)Google Scholar 62; Treggiari, Susan, ‘Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?’, Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (ed. Rawson, Beryl; Canberra: Humanities Research Centre; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 30–46Google Scholar [40–1]; Dixon, Suzanne, The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) 32–3Google Scholar, 66, 76–7, 89. The same value is evident, both for men and women, in Jewish inscriptions; see Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 52, and n. 19.

14 1 Tim 3.1–5. Cf. Plutarch Coniugalia praecepta 43 (144c).

15 1 Tim 3.12.

16 1 Tim 5.17, 22.

17 Widows seem to constitute a fixed and well-known group also in Acts 9.36–42; Seim, Turid Karlsen, The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke–Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 242–3Google Scholar.

18 Seim, Double Message, 235, 241–2. In 1 Tim 5.3 and 17, the verb τιμάω is used in such a way that monetary gifts or gifts in kind are implied. This usage, however, may well have included ‘honor’ of a social kind as well.

19 I agree with Jens Herzer that 1 Timothy should be dated to the first half of the second century; see his ‘Juden—Christen—Gnostiker: Zur Gegnerproblematik der Pastoralbriefe’, Die Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Judentum = Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (2008) 143–68Google Scholar (161, 165, 167).

20 Ignatius Smyrneans 13.1; translation from Ehrman, Bart D., The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL 24–25; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2003)Google Scholar 1.309. Cf. Ignatius Polycarp 4.1.

21 Polycarp Philippians 4.3; trans. from Ehrman, 1.339. The date and integrity of this letter are disputed (1.326–29). Sebastian Moll seems simply to assume the viability of Harrison's thesis that two letters underlie the received one; The Arch-Heretic Marcion (WUNT 250; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 12–14Google Scholar. See the perhaps too generous review of Moll's book by Foster, Paul, ‘Marcion without Harnack’, ExpT 121 (2010) 554–6Google Scholar. On the characterization of widows as the altar of God, see Osiek, Carolyn, ‘The Widow as Altar: The Rise and Fall of a Symbol’, Second Century 3 (1983) 159–69Google Scholar.

22 1 Tim 5.3–16; Bassler, Jouette, ‘The Widow's Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5.3–16’, JBL 103 (1984) 23–41Google Scholar (33–4); Seim, Double Message, 237–8. See also Horrell, ‘Disciplining Performance’, 117 and the further literature cited in n. 37.

23 1 Tim 5.3-8.

24 This goal seems to be implied in 1 Tim 5.16. According to Luke Timothy Johnson, this is ‘the most obvious and central concern of the passage’; see his The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001)Google Scholar 271. See also the discussion of his views by Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland, Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles (BZNW 164; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009) 126–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 1 Tim 5.9.

26 Implied by 1 Tim 5.12; Seim, Double Message, 238–9. See also BAGD, s.v. πίστις, and Horrell, ‘Disciplining Performance’, 121.

27 1 Tim 5.11b–12; cf. 1 Cor 7.2, 5d, 9, 36; 2 Cor 11.2–3.

28 1 Tim 5.13; see the discussions of the usage of ϕλύαρος (and in one instance, πɛριɛργία) in Bjelland Kartzow, Gossip and Gender, 50–66 (πɛριɛργία on 55). See also the use of πɛριɛργάζɛσθαι in 2 Thess 3.11.

29 Bassler, ‘Widow's Tale’, 36; note also the scholars mentioned in her n. 51; Seim speaks of the fear ‘that the surrounding society will react negatively to such a lack of conformity to the domesticity expected of women’ (Double Message, 238).

30 Bassler, ‘Widow's Tale’, 37 and n. 52. Seim also concludes that the author opposed the ascetic behavior of the widows and maintained ‘that their weakness encourages easy access by heretics who advocated an ascetic lifestyle’ (Double Message, 238).

31 The phrase ὁ ἀντικɛίμɛνος also signifies Satan in 1 Clem 51.1 and MPol 17.1.

32 In the instruction concerning an acceptable candidate for the role of overseer or bishop, the author states that he ‘must also have a good reputation among outsiders, in order that he not fall into disgrace and the trap of the Slanderer’ (3.7). Here the concern with outsiders is explicit. Note the use of the plural here but the singular in 5.14. The two passages seem to construe the activity of Satan in different ways.

33 Bjelland Kartzow accepts that 1 Tim 5.13 engages in ancient gossip discourse and that ‘a whole gossip scene is described’ (Gossip and Gender, 66). She retrieves gossip as ‘a useful stereotype’ and construes it as ‘a creative counter-discourse’ (208–10).

34 So also Horrell, ‘Disciplining Performance’, 122.

35 1 Tim 4.1–3.

36 The Acts of Paul (and Thecla) teach that only the celibate will attain the resurrection, but this work dates to the second half of the second century; see Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ‘Acts of Paul [including the Acts of Paul and Thecla]’, New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols., ed. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; Cambridge, UK: James Clarke; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, rev. ed. 1992; German ed. 1989)Google Scholar 2.213–70 (232). MacDonald has argued that the Pastoral Letters were written against oral stories similar to those later incorporated in the Acts of Paul (Legend). Willy Rordorf has agreed with him; see his ‘In welchem Verhältnis stehen die apokryphen Paulusakten zur kanonischen Apostelgeschichte und zu den Pastoralbriefen?’, Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (ed. Baarda, T. et al. ; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1988) 225–41Google Scholar (238 n. 42); ‘Nochmals: Paulusakten und Pastoralbriefe’, Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (ed. Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Betz, Otto; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 319–27Google Scholar. But the differences combined with similarities can also be explained as free adaptation on the part of the author of the Acts of Paul or as due to a process of re-oralization of the written Pastorals. Thus I am more inclined to agree with Joachim Rohde (although he dates the Pastorals unnecessarily early, i.e., 80–100 CE) that the author of the Acts of Paul knew and used the Pastoral Letters in composing his work and deliberately portrayed as the legitimate teaching of Paul those views criticized by the Pastorals as false teaching; see his ‘Pastoralbriefe und Acta Pauli’, Studia Evangelica vol. V Part II (ed. Cross, F. L.; TU 103; Berlin: Akademie, 1968) 303–10Google Scholar (303, 306, 309). Richard Bauckham concludes that the author of the Acts of Paul knew the Pastorals; see his ‘The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts’, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. 1, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Winter, Bruce W. and Clarke, A. D.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 105–52Google Scholar (116–30).

37 Clement Stromateis 3.12.1–2; translation from Ferguson, John, Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis—Books One to Three (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1991) 263–4Google Scholar. See also Tertullian adv. Marc. 1.29 and the text and translation in Evans, Ernest, Tertullian Adversus Marcionem: Books 1–3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 80–1Google Scholar. For further references see von Harnack, Adolf, Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Neue Studien zu Marcion (Berlin: Akademie, 1960; repr. of 2d rev. ed. 1924) 277*–8*Google Scholar.

38 Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 2–3.

39 ‘Escarum usum quasi inhonestum criminant’ (Harnack, Marcion, 369*; see also 149, 278*). Cf. Tertullian adv. Marc. 1.14 and Ieiun. 15.1.

40 Harnack, Marcion, 149–50, citing the fifth-century Armenian writer, Yesnik of Koghb or Eznik of Kolb, Against the Sects, who says that the Marcionites taught that it was better not to eat meat and not to drink wine; quoted by Harnack (378*–9*) from p. 197 of the translation of J. M. Schmidt, Das Wardapet Eznik von Kolb wider die Sekten (Vienna: Mechitharisten, 1900). For a critical assessment of Eznik as a source, see Hage, Wolfgang, ‘Marcion bei Eznik von Kolb’, Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung/Marcion and His Impact on Church History (ed. May, Gerhard, Greschat, Katharina, and Meiser, Martin; TU 150; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 29–37Google Scholar. In Harnack, Marcion, 384*, a tenth-century Arabic writer is quoted to similar effect. On such sources see Marco Frenschkowski, ‘Marcion in arabischen Quellen’, Marcion (ed. May) 39–63. Note that Paul, the fictive author, instructs Timothy no longer to drink water (alone or by preference), but to make use of a little wine on account of his stomach and his numerous ailments (1 Tim 5.23).

41 Harnack, Marcion, 150, citing Epiphanius Haer., 42.3 and Yesnik (Harnack, Marcion, 379*; Schmidt, 198).

42 Advocated by Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Die sogennanten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus aufs neue kritisch untersucht (Stuttgart/Tübingen: Cotta, 1835) 15–18Google Scholar; rejected by Harnack, Marcion, 3*–4*. Harnack held that 1 Tim 6.20–21 could be anti-Marcionite and contain a play on the title of Marcion's work, the Antitheses. He believed, however, that 1 Tim 6.17–21 was probably a later addition to the letter (Harnack, Marcion, 3*–4*). Advocated by Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ed. Kraft, Robert A. and Krodel, Gerhard; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971)Google Scholar 226 (228–9 in the 2d German ed. 1964; 1st ed. 1934), Knox, John, Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942) 73–6Google Scholar, and von Campenhausen, Hans, Polycarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe (SHAW 1951/2; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1951) 5–51Google Scholar (10–13); repr. ‘Polycarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe’, Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963) 197–252Google Scholar (203–6); rejected by Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 2; they conclude, nevertheless, that the Pastoral Letters and Marcion emerge from a common milieu.

43 Some may have been inspired by Luke 20.34–36 to be sexually continent or may have used this text to justify that practice (see also 18.29). One could argue similarly for 1 Cor 7. According to David G. Hunter, ‘The clearest exponent of the “encratite” reading of 1 Cor 7 in the second century was Tatian, the enigmatic apologist and former disciple of Justin’. See his ‘The Reception and Interpretation of Paul in Late Antiquity: 1 Corinthians 7 and the Ascetic Debates’, The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity (ed. DiTommaso, Lorenzo and Turcescu, Lucian; Bible in Ancient Christianity 6; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 163–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar (167). It is not clear, however, that Tatian's advocacy of ascetic practices was early enough to have been known by the author of 1 Timothy.

44 Justin 1 Apol. 26. For a relatively early dating of Marcion, see Hoffman, R. Joseph, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984)Google Scholar. For a brief summary and critique of Hoffman's book, see May, Gerhard, ‘Marcion in Contemporary Views: Results and Open Questions’, Second Century 6 (1987–88) 129–51 [131]Google Scholar; see also May's review in ‘Ein neues Marcionbild?’, Theologische Rundschau 51 (1986) 404–13Google Scholar. Hoffman defends his views in ‘How Then Know this Troublous Teacher? Further Reflections on Marcion and his Church’, Second Century 6 (1987–88) 173–91Google Scholar. For a relatively late dating, see Moll, Arch-Heretic, 31–41.

45 Cf. Tertullian's remark that ‘discipline is the measure of doctrine’ (Praescr. haer. 43.2), discussed by Lieu, Judith M., ‘“As much my apostle as Christ is mine”: The Dispute over Paul between Tertullian and Marcion’, Early Christianity 1 (2010) 41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar (51).

46 1 Tim 1.10; 6.3. For a study of the way in which Justin used circumcision to create separate identities for Jews and Christians, see Livesey, Nina E., ‘Theological Identity Making: Justin's Use of Circumcision to Create Jews and Christians’, JECS 18 (2010) 51–79Google Scholar.

47 Cf. 1 Cor 14.34–35. Abraham J. Malherbe translates ‘A woman is to learn in quietness’, linking the phrase ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ in 1 Tim 2.11 with ἡσύχιος in 2.2. See his ‘The Virtus Feminarum in 1 Timothy 2.9–15’, Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson (ed. Hamilton, Mark W. et al. ; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007) 45–65Google Scholar (47).

48 Malherbe translates ‘she is to remain quiet’ (‘Virtus’, 48).

49 Cf. 1 Cor 11.8–9.

50 Cf. 2 Cor 11.1–2.

51 1 Tim 2.11–15. Malherbe translates ‘with moderation’ (‘Virtus’, 48). See his discussion of σωϕροσύνη (53–59).

52 Tertullian Prescr. haer. 41; translation by Holmes, Peter from The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)Google Scholar 3.263. See also the text and translation of 41.5–8 in Refoulé, R. F. and de Labriolle, P., eds., Tertullien. Traité de la prescription contre les hérétiques (SC 46; Paris: Cerf, 1957) 147–8Google Scholar. Epiphanius says that Marcion ‘unhesitantly allows even women to administer supposed baptism’ (Panarion 1.42.3); translation from Williams, Frank, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book I (Sects 1–46) (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 63; Leiden: Brill, 2d ed. 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 228. See also Amidon, Philip R., SJ, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (New York: Oxford University, 1990)Google Scholar 16, Abstract 42.1.

53 Perhaps such roles and offices were equally fluid in the older churches at the time Marcion founded his. Moll asserts that Marcion was not innovative with regard to either church offices or the leadership of women (Arch-Heretic, 124–5).

54 See the discussion in Harnack, Marcion, 147, with reference to the passages from Tertullian and Epiphanius cited above in n. 52. Moll argues that Marcion adopted the practice of female leadership from ‘the Church’ and that female office holders were the exception rather than the rule ‘both within the orthodox communities and in Marcion's church’ (Arch-Heretic, 124–5).

55 The inscription dates to 318 or 319 CE. See Waddington, W. H., Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie (Paris: F. Didot, 1870) 583–4Google Scholar no. 2558; transcription on p. 582 in second section of the volume (numbering begins again with p. 465 following p. 631). See also Harnack, Marcion, 341*–4*; Moll, Arch-Heretic, 124 and n. 17. L. Michael White argues that συναγωγή is a reference to a building and the presbyter Paul had it built; The Social Origins of Christian Architecture. Vol. 2, Texts and Monuments for the Christian Domus Ecclesiae in Its Environment (HTS 42; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997) 140 #39. Waddington, Harnack, and Moll all assume that a building is meant.

56 He does so by writing in Paul's name and by echoing 1 Cor 14.34–35. For another view of the relation between 1 Tim 2.11–12 and 1 Cor 14.34–35, see n. 12 above.

57 Cf. 1 Tim 2.13 with 1 Cor 11.8–9.

58 1 Cor 11.11–12.

59 1 Tim 2.14.

60 Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.22.

61 2 Cor 11.2–3.

62 Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 47–8. For later forms of this legend, see Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1909, 1937, 1998)Google Scholar 1.105–6; the sources for Ginzberg's narrative are given in nn. 3–7 (5.133–35). For an apparently related form of the legend, see the Secret Book according to John (NHC II, 1) 24.8–25; for an English translation, see Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987)Google Scholar 47; Wisse, Frederik, ‘The Apocryphon of John’, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. Robinson, James M.; San Francisco: Harper, 3d ed. 1988) 104–23Google Scholar (118–19); or King, Karen L., The Secret Revelation of John (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 67.

63 1 Tim 2.15.

64 Dibelius and Conzelmann formulate it as ‘quo quis peccat, eo salvatur’ (Pastoral Epistles, 48).

65 Apoc. Pet. 22 (Akhmim); translation from C. Detlef G. Müller, ‘Apocalypse of Peter’, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Schneemelcher) 2.628. On mirror punishments, see Callon, Callie, ‘Sorcery, Wheels, and Mirror Punishments’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2010) 29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 1 Tim 1.3-4.

67 1 Tim 4.7.

68 1 Tim 6.20–21.

69 E.g., Plato Resp. 10.13–16 (614a-621d); cf. Plato Phaedo 61e; Plutarch De genio Socratis; De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet; De sera numinis vindicta; cf. Plutarch De Iside et Osiride 20 (358e–359a).

70 Plotinus Ennead 2.19; Porphyry Vita Plotini 16. I avoid the term ‘Gnosticism’ as problematic; see Michael A. Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1996); Karen L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard University, 2003). I continue to use the terms ‘gnostic’ and ‘Gnosis’ for convenience.

71 Layton allows that ‘the characteristic gnostic myth of creation turns out to resemble philosophical mythic speculation already current in the time of Jesus’ (Gnostic Scriptures, 5). Michael Wolter and Jens Herzer have rightly argued that 1 Timothy reflects knowledge of Gnosis or a gnostic milieu; Wolter, , Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (FRLANT 146; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) 256–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herzer, ‘Juden—Christen—Gnostiker’, 143–68 (157–67).

72 Also known as the Apocryphon of John and the Secret Revelation of John. Ismo Dunderberg concludes that Valentinus ‘was familiar with the Apocryphon of John or other Sethian traditions’; see Dunderberg, , Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (New York: Columbia University, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 73. See the discussion of Valentinus below.

73 Aland, Barbara, ‘Marcion (ca. 85–160)/Marcioniten’, TRE 22 (1992) 89–101Google Scholar [section 4]. Reprinted in her Was Ist Gnosis? Studien zum frühen Christentum, zu Marcion und zur kaiserzeitlichen Philosophie (WUNT 239; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 318–40Google Scholar.

74 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 14.

75 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 23; see also 24–5. See also King, Secret Revelation of John, 85–8.

76 Secret Book according to John (NHC II, 1) 9.28-30; 10.2–5; translation from Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 35. Four ancient copies of this work have come down to us; for discussion see King, Secret Revelation of John, 18–19, 318 n. 43.

77 Secret Book according to John, 10.19; cf. 10.19–25.15 with Plato Timaeus and Gen 1–4.

78 I agree with Baur's argument that ‘teachers of the Law’ here does not mean those who interpret the Law as a guide for living life but rather those who study the Law in order to determine the correct understanding of it in a wider sense (Pastoralbriefe, 16–17).

79 1 Tim 1.6–7.

80 According to King, the Secret Book according to John is an interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis (Secret Revelation of John, 215–21).

81 Secret Book according to John, 21.16–22.20.

82 1 Tim 1.8–11.

83 Aland, ‘Marcion/Marcioniten’, section 3.2. Lieu thinks it unlikely that Marcion's work included extensive commentary (‘Dispute’, 44). She also takes it as ‘a strong possibility’ that the antitheses, especially ‘Law against Gospel’, ‘are as much the projection of Tertullian's own mentalité’ as Marcion's (46; cf. 50).

84 Harnack, Marcion, 89 (Antithesis I).

85 Harnack, Marcion, 89–91 (Antitheses II, III, VIII, XIX).

86 Harnack, Marcion, 92 (Antithesis XXX).

87 Evans, Tertullian, xiv. See also E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948) 113–14, 118–19, 122–3; Blackman also notes that Marcion rejected allegorical interpretation (114–15).

88 Harnack, Marcion, 92 (Antithesis XXIX), 117; Blackman, Marcion, 118. Irenaeus attempted to refute this argument in Haer. 4.34.

89 Harnack, Marcion, 91 (Antithesis XVIII).

90 Gal 3.19; Rom 5.13.

91 As Baur rightly noted (Pastoralbriefe, 18).

92 Baur, Pastoralbriefe, 26–7, citing Tertullian adv. Marc. 1.19; 4.1. ‘Contrary oppositions’ is Evans's translation of Tertullian's ‘Antitheses Marcionis’ (Tertullian, 48–9).

93 Harnack, Marcion, 440*. As noted above, he argued that 1 Tim 6.20-21 may allude to Marcion but took it as a later addition to the letter (3*–4* n. 1).

94 Aland, Barbara, ‘Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation’, ZThK 70 (1973) 420–47 (423)Google Scholar. Reprinted in Aland, Gnosis, 291–317 (294).

95 For a discussion of Roman mores regarding marriage, see Cooper, Kate (Catherine Fales), The Fall of the Roman Household (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 1 Cor 11.5–6, 13.

97 1 Tim 2.8, 9–10. Korinna Zamfir and Joseph Verheyden argue that not only βούλομαι but the phrase βούλομαι προσɛύχɛσθαι should be supplied to fill the ellipsis in v. 9; ‘Text-Critical and Intertextual Remarks on 1 Tim 2.8–10’, NovT 50 (2008) 376–406Google Scholar. They also argue that 1 Cor 11.3–15 is an important pre-text for 1 Tim 2.8-10. For an interpretation of this passage from the point of view of ancient Mediterranean women, see Batten, Alicia J., ‘Neither Gold nor Braided Hair (1 Timothy 2.9; 1 Peter 3.3): Adornment, Gender and Honour in Antiquity’, NTS 55 (2009) 484–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Plutarch Coniug. praec. 26 (141e); translation by Donald Russell in Sarah B. Pomeroy, ed., Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife: English Translations, Commentary, Interpretive Essays, and Bibliography (New York: Oxford, 1999) 9.

99 1 Cor 14.35b.

100 1 Tim 2.11–12.

101 Plutarch Coniug. praec. 31–33 (142c-e) (trans. Russell) 9–10. For a discussion of the two passages cited here in literary and historical context, see Sarah B. Pomeroy, ‘Reflections on Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed’, Plutarch's Advice (ed. Pomeroy) 33–42; Simon Swain, ‘Plutarch's Moral Program’, Plutarch's Advice (ed. Pomeroy) 85–96 and the other essays in the volume. See especially the one by Jo Ann McNamara, who contrasts Plutarch's age with that of Plato and compares Christian values with those of Plutarch (‘Gendering Virtue’, Plutarch's Advice [ed. Pomeroy] 151–61).

102 Lisette Goessler has argued that Plutarch's Dialogue on Love (Erotikos/Amatorius) stands in the tradition of the topos ‘concerning marriage’ (πɛρὶ γάμου), in particular in the tradition of the rhetorical discussion of the question whether it is necessary to marry (ɛἰ γαμητέον), and that Plutarch's answer is affirmative; Plutarchs Gedanken über die Ehe (Zürich: Buchdruckerei Berichthaus, 1962)Google Scholar 31–2. See also the translation of selected sections of her book in Pomeroy, ed., Plutarch's Advice, 97–115. On the Amatorius and similar works, see Frederick E. Brenk, ‘Most Beautiful and Divine: Graeco-Romans (especially Plutarch) and Paul on Love and Marriage’, Biblical and New Testament Genres and Themes in the Context of Greco-Roman Literature (ed. David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk; NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). I am grateful to him for making this essay available to me.

103 Secret Book according to John 2.26–9.24; 24.8–32; 24.34–25.5; 29.14–30.9. In a forthcoming article, ‘Reading Sex and Gender in the Secret Revelation of John', JECS 19 (2011), Karen L. King has articulated both the contrast in the gendered representations between the upper and lower world and the mimetic relationship between those of the upper world and those of Seth and his descendants; I am grateful to her for making it available to me.

104 DeConick, April D., ‘The Great Mystery of Marriage: Sex and Conception in Ancient Valentinian Traditions’, VC 57 (2003) 307–42Google Scholar. For a brief discussion of Valentinus, the Valentinians, and their interpretation of Paul, see Pervo, Making of Paul, 210–19.

105 DeConick, ‘Mystery of Marriage’, 335.

106 On Valentinus as a Christian theologian, see Markschies, Christoph, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins (WUNT 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992)Google Scholar. See also Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 217–22.

107 Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 45.

108 Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 45.

109 Translation from Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 248.

110 Markschies, Valentinus, 246–7; Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 72. The quotation is Dunderberg's translation of a statement by Markschies (247).

111 Clement Stromateis 3.1.1.1; translation from Ferguson, Stromateis Books One to Three, 256. See also Ptolemy's Letter to Flora 33.5.13–14, where it is implied that at least some Valentinians practice physical fasts, as a reminder of the true fast, which consists of abstinence from evil deeds. The Treatise on the Resurrection (Epistle to Rheginus) states that practicing many kinds of continence leads to release from this element (the body) and possibly from reincarnation (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 324 n. h). It is not clear exactly what kinds of practices are meant (49, lines 26–36). I am grateful to Ismo Dunderberg for bringing the last two references to my attention.