1 Historians have discussed whether the historical Jesus was married, but given that the earliest and most historically reliable information about the life of Jesus (largely the NT Gospels) is silent on the issue, arguments about which answer is more probable have not led to a firm consensus. For an overview of the arguments, see Phipps, William E., Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1970)Google Scholar; Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 332-45Google Scholar.

2 See e.g., Pagels, Elaine, ‘Adam and Eve, Christ and the Church: A Survey of Second Century Controversies Concerning Marriage,’ The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McLachlan Wilson (ed. Logan, A. H. B. and Wedderburn, A. J. M.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983) 146-75Google Scholar; Brown, Peter, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University, 1988)Google Scholar; Martin, Dale B., Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006)Google Scholar.

3 On implications for Christian slaves, see Glancy, Jennifer A., ‘Obstacles to Slaves’ Participation in the Corinthian Church', JBL 117 (1998) 481-501Google Scholar.

4 See also Rev 21.2, 9; and interpretations of the Song of Songs in Murphy, Roland E., The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar.

5 See esp. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 65-90; Dunning, Benjamin H., Specters of Paul: Sexual Difference in Early Christian Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 For Clement's attempts to correct this view, see Strom. III,74.1; Merz, Annette, ‘Why Did the Pure Bride of Christ (2 Cor 11.2) Become a Wedded Wife (Eph 5.22-33)? Theses about the Intertextual Transformation of an Ecclesiological Metaphor’, JSNT 79 (2000) 131-47Google Scholar, here 143.

7 See e.g., Tertullian Exh. cast. 9.4-5, and The Acts of Paul and Thecla 5-6. While the image of Jerusalem as the bride of the Lamb (Christ) in Rev 21.2, 9 does not discuss whether Christians should marry or not, note Rev 14.3-4 which states that 144,000 redeemed ‘had not defiled themselves with women for they are virgins’ (Rev 14.3-4).

8 See, for example, Clem. Alex. Strom. III,9.63; Testimony of Truth 30.28-30; cp. Dial. Sav. 144.15-22.

9 See, for example, the so-called household codes in Eph 5.21-6.9; Col 3.18-4.1; 1 Pet 2.18-3.7.

10 See Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 65-76.

11 Clement Alex. Strom. III,58. He may be referring here not to Paul but to John 1.12-13.

12 Clement Alex. Strom. III.58; see also my discussion of The Secret Revelation of John (King, Karen L., ‘Reading Sex and Gender in the Secret Revelation of John’, JECS 19 [2011] 519-38Google Scholar).

13 Strom. III,6.49.1 (trans. Chadwick, Henry, Alexandrian Christianity [The Library of Christian Classics 2; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954] 62-3Google Scholar, my emphasis; Greek text in Stählin, Otto, Clemens Alexandrius, Stromata Buch I–IV [GCS 15; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906] 218Google Scholar). Clement may be referring here to Tatian (see Strom. III.6.81-82); see also Irenaeus Against Heresies I.27.1; Eusebius Eccl. Hist. IV.29.

14 Strom. III.58; see also Gaca, Kathy L., The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 2003) esp. 247-72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 On Virginity 11.1; 13.4.

16 See the excellent discussion of Clark, Elizabeth, ‘The Celibate Bridegroom and his Virginal Brides: Metaphor and the Marriage of Jesus in Early Christian Ascetic Exegesis’, Church History 77 (2008) 1-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See e.g., the discussion of Kostenberger, Andreas J., ‘The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, “One Flesh”’, Trinity Journal ns 12 (1991) 79-94Google Scholar.

18 See e.g., Pagels, ‘Adam and Eve’, 150.

19 Merz, ‘Why Did the Pure Bride’, 147.

20 Tertullian may also be alluding to 2 Cor 11.2-3.

21 See On Monogamy 5.7 (Paul Mattei, Tertullien. Le Mariage unique [De monogamia] [SC 343; Paris: Cerf, 1988] 152). Cp. also Exh Cas. 5.

22 See On Monogamy 5.5 (Mattei, Tertullian, 150, 152).

23 On Monogamy 5.6 (Mattei, Tertullian, 152); see Matt 19.8-9, 12.

24 See also Jerome Against Jovinianus 1.16, citing Eph 5.31-32 and 1 Thess 4.7.

25 See Schenke, Hans-Martin, Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3). Neu herausgegeben, übersetzt und erklärt (Texte und Untersuchungen 143; Berlin: Akademie, 1997)Google Scholar. Unless otherwise noted, the English translations are the author's based on Schenke's text, with reference also to Bentley Layton (text) and Isenberg, Wesley W. (trans.), ‘The Gospel of Philip’, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7 (NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 145-215Google Scholar.

26 See Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 4-5; ‘Das Philippusevangelium (NHCII,3),’ Antike christlich Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. 1. Band: Evangelien und Verwandtes Teilband 1 (ed. Markschies, Christoph and Schröter, Jens; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 527-36Google Scholar; Hugo Lundhaug suggests layers dating to different periods (Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and Exegesis on the Soul (NHMS 37; Leiden: Brill, 2010Google Scholar) 162, 357-94.

27 See Thomassen, Einar, ‘How Valentinian Is the Gospel of Philip?’, The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (ed. Turner, John D. and McGuire, Anne; NHS 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 252-3Google Scholar; Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 6-8; for an overview of the problem, see Turner, Martha Lee, ‘On the Coherence of the Gospel according to Philip’, The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years (ed. Turner and McGuire) 223-50Google Scholar; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 155-62, 345-9.

28 See Turner, Martha Lee, The Gospel according to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection (NHMS 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996)Google Scholar; Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 5-8; Bas van Os, ‘Baptism in the Bridal Chamber: The Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptismal Instruction’ (PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2007), online: http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/ theology/2007/l.k.van.os/).

29 See esp. Thomassen, ‘How Valentinian’; idem, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the ‘Valentinians’ (NHMS 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006).

30 For more on the bridal chamber in Valentinian literature, see Heimola, Minna, Christian Identity in the Gospel of Philip (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2011) 149-67Google Scholar. For Valentinian ritual, see Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 333-414, esp. concerning Gospel of Philip, see 341-50 and 90-102.

31 See Marjanen, Antti, The Woman Jesus Loved. Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (NHMS 40: Leiden: Brill, 1996) 154Google Scholar.

32 Translation follows the analysis of Thomassen, Einar, ‘Gos. Philip 67:27-30: Not “In a Mystery”,’ Coptica, gnostica, manichaica: Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk (ed. Painchaud, Louis and Poirier, Paul-Hubert; Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval; Louvain: Peeters, 2006) 925-39Google Scholar, here 939; see also Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 311-16.

33 See esp. Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 251, 372-7; Thomassen, ‘How Valentinian’, 267; The Spiritual Seed, 90-102, 341; Schmid, Herbert, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus. Anfänge einer Theorie des Sakraments im koptischen Philippusevangelium (NHC II 3) (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 88; Leiden: Brill, 2007) esp. 83-109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Van Os understands the ritual to have two parts, baptism and chrism followed by the Eucharist and greeting with a kiss. These are ‘the rituals in the world today’ while bridal chamber and redemption are ‘their hidden realities’ (‘Baptism in the Bridal Chamber’, 91-9). He also notes that ‘our bridal chamber’ refers to ‘the earthly cult-room and/or the inmost being of the believer, it is an image of the heavenly bridal chamber, the plerôma’ (96).

35 Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus, 103-5; see also 102 n. 388 for discussion of the specific terminology used; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 105-9, 325-35.

36 See Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 90-102, 272.

37 My translation follows Schenke's exegesis (Das Philippus-Evangelium, 45, 374-7).

38 See Pagels, ‘Ritual’, 287-8; Beattie, Gillian (Women and Marriage in Paul and his Early Interpreters [London: T&T Clark, 2005] 126)Google Scholar.

39 See Gos. Phil. 53.23–54.31.

40 See Thomassen, ‘Gos. Philip 67.27-30: Not “in a Mystery”’, 939.

41 ‘How Valentinian’, 256.

42 For example, Gos. Phil. 73.23-27 may refer to gospel stories of food miracles, or eucharistic allusions to Christ's body as the bread of life.

43 Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 95.

44 See Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 90-102. He argues that the Gospel of Philip collapses the sequential narrative of protology (93-4) and salvation history (101, 102) in the service of ‘synchronic typology and symbolism’.

45 Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 95.

46 See Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 411-13; also Dunderberg, Ismo, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (New York: Columbia University, 2008), 55-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Trans. Isenberg, 185. See also Gos. Phil. 55.27-28 which states that Mary (the mother) is ‘the virgin whom no power defiled’.

48 See Gos. Phil. 67.26-27; becoming a Christian is also attributed to the illuminating fire of the anointing (chrism) (Gos. Phil. 67.5, 19-27; 74.12-16).

49 Schenke suggests the Father and the virgin refer to the Savior and Sophia-Achamoth (Das Philippus-Evangelium, 419-21); Thomassen suggests that they refer to the Savior in his double roles as bridegroom (redeemer) and bride (redeemed) (‘How Valentinian’, 257-63). Both interpretations are clearly possible and may be mutually implied.

50 See Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 203-7.

51 Gos. Phil. 86.4-7, trans. Isenberg, 213.

52 See Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 248-51.

53 Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 420.

54 Das Philippus-Evangelium, 421; see also Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 321-4.

55 Christoph Markschies argues that Valentinus held that baptism conferred salvation in this life (Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)], 1992] 128, 132Google Scholar).

56 For example, the crucifixion or the rending of the temple veil.

57 For example by Isenberg in Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, 159; Schenke translates them both as ‘Gefährtin’, putting the first use in scare quotes (Das Philippus-Evangelium, 29); for the range of options, see Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 151-6.

58 In the Gospel of Philip this verb is also applied to relations of evil spirits with souls (65.1-4), logos with logos, light with light, and humans with light (78.30, 31; 79.2).

59 For marriage as a yoking together, , see Budge, E. A. Wallis, Coptic Homilies in the Dialect of Upper Egypt Edited from the Papyrus Codex Oriental 5001 in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1910) 47Google Scholar, referenced by Crum, W. E., A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 726bGoogle Scholar. can also translate the Greek συζυγία, a word signifying a ‘yoke of animals’, but also with the sexual connotation of ‘coupling, copulation’. Moreover, in Greek, married partners are commonly referred to as σύζυγος (‘yoked together, paired, united, esp. by marriage), with the feminine substantive meaning ‘wife’ (see Liddell, Henry George, Scott, Robert, and James, Henry Stuart, A Greek–English Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 9th ed. 1996]Google Scholar). I thank AnneMarie Luijendijk for this note.

60 See Buckley, Jorunn J. and Good, Deirdre J., ‘Sacramental Language and Verbs of Generating, Creating, and Begetting in the Gospel of Philip,’ JECS 5 (1997) 1-19Google Scholar, see 2-3, 12, 15; Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus, 97-100.

61 Bart D. Ehrman translates the term koinônos as ‘lover’ in Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University, 2003) 41Google Scholar.

62 Gos. Phil. 65.20; 70.19; 76.7; 82.1; see Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 154.

63 Hans-Josef Klauck has argued that the Gospel of Philip is here dependent on John 19.25 (‘Die dreifache Maria. Zur Rezeption von John 19,25 in EvPhil 32’, The Four Gospels [ed. Segbroeck, F. van; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992] 3.2343-58Google Scholar); see also Epiphanius Panarion 78.8,1; 78.9,6 which says Jesus had a sister named Mary; references from Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 161 n. 61). For further discussion, see Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 269-72, who understands the point of the passage to clarify that the three women with especially close relations to Jesus are all named Mary. He notes that the terminology here could refer to marriage with Mary Magdalene, but in the end prefers an allegorical reading in which the three earthly Marys are a symbol of the three-fold nature of the Holy Spirit as the Savior's mother, sister, and conjugal mate. Alternatively Pagels suggested that they ‘serve as images of Christ's spiritual syzugos in her triple manifestations, respectively, as Holy Spirit, wisdom (Eve), and as his “companion” and bride, the church (Gos. Phil. 55)’ (‘Adam and Eve’, 167); see also Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 160-2; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 396-7.

64 The Coptic text here follows the restoration of Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 36, but he understands Sophia, not Mary Magdalene, to be the koinônos of the Savior (Das Philippus-Evangelium, 37, 333-6). He takes ‘Mary Magdalene’ in Gos. Phil. 63.33 as the preposed subject of a new sentence, which would result in the English translation: ‘Wisdom, who is called “barren”, is the mother [of the an]gels and the koinônos of the S[avior]. The S[avior] loved Ma]ry Magdalene more than [all] the discip[le]s [and he] kissed her [mouth many] times.’ Nonetheless Schenke concludes that the direct proximity of these sayings about Sophia and Mary Magdalene makes it appear that the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is represented as the image of the heavenly syzygy between the Savior and Sophia, a pairing that replays the Valentinian syzygy of Christ and the Holy Spirit. He concludes, ‘[I]m Blick auf das, was als Kontext im EvPhil noch kommt, wird wohl kein Leser den Gedanken vermeiden können, daß die κοινωνία zwischen Jesus und Maria Magdalena auch ein Typos für das Mysterium des Brautgemachs ist’ (Das Philippus-Evangelium, 336). In contrast, my reading understands ‘Mary Magdalene’ in Gos. Phil. 63.33 to stand in apposition to koinônos, such that Mary Magdalene is presented as the type of the heavenly Sophia. This reading is supported by Gos. Phil. 59.6-11 where the term koinônos is clearly used to refer to Mary Magdalene. Isenberg offers yet a third reading (see ‘The Gospel of Philip’, 166-7). He restores Gos. Phil. 63.33 with , abbreviating ‘Savior’ to make room for the subject (theme) of a nominal sentence (), so that the English translation would now read: ‘Wisdom, who is called “barren”, is the mother [of the an]gels. And the koinônos of the S[avior is Ma]ry Magalene. [The S[avior loved her] more than [all] the discip[le]s [and he] kissed her [mouth many] times.’ My reading agrees with Isenberg in identifying Mary Magdalene as Jesus' koinônos, but is distinguished from him in identifying Wisdom with Mary Magdalene.

65 Trans. Isenberg.

66 Gos. Phil. 59.2-6; see esp. Schenke's discussion in Das Philippus-Evangelium, 264-9; Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus, 87 n. 331. Michael Penn shows that the common practice of greeting family members with a kiss to a great extent defined the boundaries of family relations. By making the exchange of kisses central to Christian practice, Christians were engaged in producing a new kind of family (‘Performing Family: Ritual Kissing and the Construction of Early Christian Kinship,’ JECS 10 [2002] 167Google Scholar). He also notes that both Christian ritual kisses and familial kisses were on the lips (156, 159), which I suggest supports the likelihood of the restoration of (‘mouth’) at Gos. Phil. 64.36. Moreover, I would argue that the verb (Greek ἀσπάζɛσθαι), often translated neutrally as ‘greet’, probably implies a kiss of greeting (e.g. Gos. Mary 8.12-13). See also Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 158-60; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 298-9; van Os, ‘Baptism in the Bridal Chamber’, 101-4.

67 Some scholars have argued that the bridal chamber involved only symbolic or spiritual union of male and female (see, e.g., Schenke, Hans-Martin, ‘“Das Evangelium nach Philippus”. Ein Evangelium der Valentinianer aus dem Funde von Nag Hammadi,’ Theologische Literatur Zeitung 84 [1959] 1-26Google Scholar, esp. 5; Williams, Michael A., ‘Realized Eschatology in the Gospel of Philip,’ Restoration Quarterly 3 [1971] 1-17Google Scholar; Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1996] 148-50Google Scholar; Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, 151-60; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 405; Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus, 108 n. 413, 120-7, 486; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 275-9, 302-3 understands the primary ‘joining’ to be of the Christian with Christ). Others have argued for actual marriage/intercourse (see, e.g., Buckley, Jorunn J., ‘A Cult Mystery in the Gospel of Philip,’ JBL 99 [1980] 569-81Google Scholar; DeConick, April D., ‘The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in The Gospel of Philip,’ Vigiliae Christianae 55 [2001] 225-61Google Scholar, esp. 257-8). Pagels argues that the problem arises in part because ‘there is no unambiguous evidence, either in the Gospel of Philip or in the church fathers to show how this author intended to use sexual imagery’ (‘The “Mystery of Marriage” in the Gospel of Philip Revisited’, The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester [ed. Pearson, Birger A.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 446Google Scholar, emphasis original); rather, the author of the Gospel of Philip purposefully ‘refrains from offering specific instructions, and, in particular, refrains from exclusively advocating either celibacy or marriage’ (453; see also 442-5; Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent [New York: Random House, 1988] 70-2Google Scholar; see also Beattie, Women and Marriage, 127-31). My position is that framing the question as exclusively either spiritual or real poses a distinction the text is not making; its goal is to teach the spiritual meanings (or misconceptions) of what ‘really’ occurs in the world.

It should also be noted that different conceptualities of ritual theory are operating in the disagreements about whether to regard the bridal chamber as ‘mystery’, ‘sacrament’, or ‘ritual’ (see here esp. Buckley, ‘A Cult Mystery’; Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus, 26-44). In calling the bridal chamber a ‘ritual’, I follow Bell, Catherine, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University, 1992)Google Scholar.

68 A similar line of discussion is offered by Zimmermann, Ruben, Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis. Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie eines Bildfelds in Urchristentum und antiker Umwelt (WUNT 122; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2001) 580-99Google Scholar.

69 See Heimola, Christian Identity, 265-84.

70 On Valentinian Christianity, see Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed; Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?.

71 Strom. III,1.1; Greek text in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 195; English translation by the author.

72 Against Heresies I,6.4; see Rousseau, Adelin and Doutreleau, Louis, ed. and trans., Irénée de Lyon. Contre les Hérésies Livre Un (Paris: Cerf, 1979) 68-101Google Scholar. Irenaeus may be mistaking the requirement of the bridal chamber ritual for actual marriage. In any case, he implies polemically that the Valentinian ritual licensed sexual immorality, a charge Dunderberg (correctly in my opinion) labels ‘mudslinging’ (see Beyond Gnosticism, 137-8). Irenaeus himself notes that the Valentinians distinguished marriage of the truth from worldly marriages which are driven by the passion of desire (ἐπιθυμία), a distinction also made by Gos. Phil. 82.2-8. See the discussion of DeConick, ‘The True Mysteries’, 249-50.

73 This position is taken already by Phipps, Was Jesus Married? 135-8. I do not, however, find plausible his suggestion that this tradition in the Gospel of Philip goes back to first-century Palestine and ‘provides documentary validation of the hypothesis that Jesus married, and marriage to Mary Magdalene is one possible option that could fit into the New Testament portrayal of Jesus’ (137). In my opinion, the Gospel of Philip does not provide evidence useful in resolving the question of the historical Jesus' marital status.

74 See Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 397-9, 497-9.

75 Although we disagree on particular points, April D. DeConick also argues that ‘human marriage is reflective of the perfect marriage that takes place in the heavenly realm’ (‘The True Mysteries’, 246-7, see also 246-51, 252-3), and I want to acknowledge that her argument was extremely stimulating for the development of my perspective here. In addition, while I am not persuaded by her thesis that Jewish mystical traditions provide keys to interpreting the Gospel of Philip, she helpfully shows that comparable kinds of thought and practice can be seen among some Jews and Hermeticists as well (245, 250-6). See also Zimmermann, Geschlechtermetaphorik, 586-8.

76 See Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 350-2.

77 Markschies notes that the notion that people are inhabited by demons is conventional and widespread in Christian literature, and he ties Valentinus's saying (cited in Clem. Alex. Strom. II.114,3-6) to baptismal practice (Valentinus Gnosticus?, 69-80).

78 In contrast, Williams interprets the reference to ‘undefiled marriage’ to mean ‘a marriage lacking sexual intercourse’, and concludes that ‘it is possible to read the entire text of Gos. Phil. assuming this encratic perspective’ (Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’, 148). He stresses that ‘the pairing of the man and the woman…says nothing about sexual intercourse between them’, but rather ‘the married couple depicted here as protected by union in the bridal chamber ritual from demonic sexual attack have been joined in a “spiritual marriage”’ (Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’, 149, emphasis original).

79 E.g., the notion of the Christian's marriage to Christ (Gos. Phil. 78.12-25; see Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 273-5).

80 See Adversus Haereses V.1,1.

81 See, among others, Wilson, Robert McL., ‘The New Testament in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip,’ NTS 9 (1962-63) 292Google Scholar; Pagels, ‘Adam and Eve’, 164; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 405; Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 104-5.

82 Merz, ‘The Pure Bride of Christ’, 139, who concludes, ‘This model leaves no niche free for an unmarried imitation of Christ that would possess the same value as marriage’.

83 While Ephesians probably understands ‘Christ giving himself up’ in terms of his incarnation and (sacrificial) death, Valentinians understand his incarnation and his crucifixion as salvific acts performed for the sake of his enfleshed body, the Church. It also figures Jesus' own baptism as reception of the logos. See esp. Thomassen's discussion of Tripartite Tractate 125.1-11 (‘Gos. Phil. 67:27-30’, 936).

84 Scholars have previously suggested that Ephesians was written either against Gnosticism or was influenced by it (see Barth, Markus, Ephesians [2 vols.; AB 34; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974] 12-18Google Scholar, 644-5, 695). My position with regard to the Gospel of Philip is that some Valentinian Christians built upon Ephesians to articulate their distinctive ritual practice theologically. Ephesians was not influenced by Valentinians (who only emerged later), and the letter can be adequately interpreted without reference to them.

85 Differences include notions of Jesus' death as sacrifice, the hierarchical ordering of marriage in terms of a wife's obedience to her husband, and interpretations of Christian opposition, not to flesh and blood, but to the principalities, powers, and rulers of the present darkness (Eph 6.12).

86 See esp. the argument of Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth, 349-56.

87 That the body of Christ is not entirely metaphorical is already found in Paul, who conceptualized ‘being in Christ’ as a material condition since baptism involved the reception of a holy ‘stuff’, that is, a particularly fine material pneuma (see Stowers, Stanley K., ‘What Is “Pauline Participation in Christ?”’, Redefining First-century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders [ed. Udoh, Fabian E.; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2008] 352-71Google Scholar).