¹ Meeks, W., ‘The Image of Androgyne: Some uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity’, HR 13 (1974) 199–200; for further discussion of parallelism in 1 CorGoogle Scholarsee Balch, D. L., ‘1 Cor 7. 32–35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety, and Distractions’, JBL 102/3 (1983) 436–7.Google Scholar

² Meeks, , ‘Androgyne’, 201.Google Scholar

³ See MacDonald, D. R., There is No Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominical Saying in Paul and Gnosticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 73, n. 22.Google Scholar

⁴ Scholars are divided with respect to the exact nature of the problems in Corinth. For example, compare the hypothesis of Schmithals, W. who believes the main problem involves a libertine attitude. (Gnosticism in Corinth [Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1971] 234)Google Scholarwith that of Yarbrough, O. L. who believes that ‘ascetic’ elitism was the main issue (Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul [SBL Dissertation Series 80; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985] 124–5).Google Scholar

⁵ See Hurd, J. C., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) 155–7.Google Scholar

⁶ See MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 69–72, esp. p. 70. Note that ‘to touch a woman’ is a euphemism for sexual intercourse; see Hurd, 1 Corinthians, p. 158. Whether 1 Cor 7. lb is a slogan or a straightforward statement of Paul's position is a matter of debate.Google ScholarSee for example discussion in Scroggs, R., ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman’, JAAR 40 (1972) 295–6.Google Scholar

⁷ 1 Cor 7. 36–7 might be added to this list if it refers to an engaged couple and not to a father's duty towards his unmarried daughter.Google Scholar

⁸ Yarbrough, O. L., ‘Elitist Sexual Ethics in Corinth’ (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL December 1987) 13.Google Scholar

⁹ That Paul's instructions on marriage and sexual morality reveal an interest in the relationship between church communities and the outside world is suggested by 1 Thess 4. 3b–5. Yarbrough, O. L. has noted the similarity between Paul's language and Jewish paraenesis which served to distinguish the community of the Diaspora from the outside world. See Not Like the Gentiles, 86–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰ On the relation between the authentic epistles and the deutero-Pauline writings see MacDonald, M. Y., The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline writings (SNTS Monograph Series 60; Cambridge: At the University Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ For detailed arguments to support this description of the social setting of 1 Tim 5 see Ibid., 167–8, 176–39.

¹² See Meier, J. P., ‘On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (1 Cor 11.2–16)’, CBQ 40 (1978) 217.Google Scholar

¹³ On the relationship between Gal 3. 28 and 1 Cor 7. 17–28 see Bartchy, S. S., Mallon Chresai: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Cor 7. 21 (SBL Dissertation Series 11; Missoula; Scholars, 1973) 174.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For a summary of the literature linking the situation in Corinth with Gal 3. 28 see MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 87–8, n. 75.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See especially Ibid., 65–111.

¹⁶ See Ibid., 17–21. Note that the Gospel of the Egyptians here should not be confused with its namesake from Nag Hammadi. Note also that MacDonald argues that the relationship between these versions is oral not literary; see p. 21. See also MacDonald's arguments in favour of the Dominical Saying being more primitive than Gal 3. 27–8, pp. 114–26.

¹⁷ Ibid., 50; MacDonald traces the long history of the images of putting off garments and of making the two one in anthropological discussions among Greek philosophers. He argues: ‘It is within the context of this philosophical tradition and its religious permutations in hellenized Judaism and Gnosticism that we should interpret the imagery of the Dominical Saying.’ (p. 25)

¹⁸ See Ibid., 50–63. On the relation between baptism and asceticism in the early church see A. Vööbus, Celibacy, A Requirement for Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church (Stockholm: Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1951) and R. Murray, ‘The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetic Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church’, NTS 21 (1974) 59–8O.

¹⁹ MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 113–26.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid.,119–26, esp. pp. 121,126.

²¹ The exact nature of the problem addressed in this passage has long been debated. See the discussion of the various possibilities in MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 81–91.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 72–98; see pp. 108–9.

²³ Ibid., 98–102.

²⁴ Ibid., 108–10.

²⁵ Ibid., 30–1. See also Gos. Thorn. 37, 49, 75, 79, 104, 112, 114; 2 Clem 12.5. On sexual asceticism in the Gospel of Thomas see for example the discussion of the contrast between logion 79 and Luke 11. 27–8; 23.29 in J. É. Ménard, L'Évangile Selon Thomas (NHS V; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975) 180–1. On the similarities between the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of Thomas see MacDonald, No Male and Female, 49, n. 105. On asceticism in 2 Clement see MacDonald, No Male and Female, 41–3.

²⁶ For an excellent treatment of the relationship between 1 Cor 7 and the sayings of Jesus congenial to asceticism in the Synoptics see Balch, D. L., ‘Backgrounds of I Cor VII: Sayings of the Lord in Q; Moses as an Ascetic ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ in II Cor III’, NTS 18 (1972) 351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ MacDonald's hypothesis that the theology of the Dominical Saying inspired the Corinthian ‘pneumatics’ allows for a direct connection to be made between Paul's response to the problems involving women in 1 Cor 11 and his comments against obligatory celibacy in 1 Cor 7. In fact, MacDonald identifies such a connection, but does not discuss it in detail; see No Male and Female, esp. pp. 69–72, 110.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Geertz, C., ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, Anthropological Approaches to the study of Religion (ed. Banton, M.; London: Tavistock, 1966) 1–46, esp. p. 29.Google Scholar

²⁹ On the relationship between baptism and ‘pneumatic’ activities in Corinth see MacDonald, No Male and Female, 67–9.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Geertz, , ‘Religion’, 38.Google Scholar

³¹ See Horsley, R. A., ‘Spiritual Marriage with Sophia’, VC 33 (1979) 40–3;Google Scholarsee De Vita Contemplativa (trans. Colson, F. H.; 10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University). A connection between asceticism and spiritual experiences is also discussed by Horsley in relation to Philo's description of Moses (De Vita Mosis 2.66–70), the Wisdom of Solomon, and devotion to Isis; see pp. 33–4, 38–40, 43–6.Google Scholar

³² See MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 65–6.Google Scholar

³³ On the relationship between human thought and the social context in which it arises see the valuable treatise on the sociology of knowledge by Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T., The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1967).Google Scholar

³⁴ See MacDonald, , No Male and Female, 60. But note that spiritual transcendence for some in Corinth seems to have meant freedom to perform any sexual act (1 Cor 5. 2; 6. 12). See pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

³⁵ Note that Paul is using the terms ‘to separate’ (χωρίζειν) and ‘to divorce’ (άφιέναι) interchangeably in 1 Cor 7. 10–16; see the discussion in Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, ‘The Divorced Woman in 1 Cor 7.10–11’, JBL 100 (1981) 605.Google Scholar

³⁶ Murphy-O'Connor notes that the structure of Paul's argument indicates that the Apostle may have had a particular case in mind. But Murphy-O'Connor believes that men were the main instigators of divorce here, arguing that, contrary to the usual reading, 1 Cor 7. 10b should be translated as ‘the wife should not allow herself to be separated from her husband’; ‘see The Divorced Woman’, 601–3. See the response to Murphy-O'Connor's hypothesis in Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles, 111, n. 67.Google Scholar

³⁷ Barrett, C. K. argues that Paul probably addressed the circumstances of wives because he was thinking of a specific case; see A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam and Charles Black: 1968) 185.Google Scholar

³⁸ Note that Augustan legislation encouraged widows and divorced women to remarry. But the legislation does not seem to have hampered the activity of wealthy widows who chose to remain in control of their affairs and were in fact praised for remaining faithful to the memory of their dead husbands; see Pomeroy, , Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Shocken, 1975) 149–50, 158, 161;Google ScholarBalsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women: Their History and Habits (London: Bodley Head, 1962) 76–7, 89–90, 220–2;Google ScholarMacDonald, , Pauline Churches, 185–7.Google Scholar

³⁹ Barrett, , I Corinthians, 186.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., see discussion pp. 173–85.

⁴¹ Ibid., 180–1 for consideration of possible meanings.

⁴² Ibid., 180.

⁴³ Ibid., 183–4. Note that some scholars have argued that the problem here involves ‘spiritual marriages’: couples living together without physical union. As Barrett points out, against this interpretation is the fact that we have no other evidence of ‘spiritual marriages’ from this early period and the difficulty of harmonizing Paul's apparent approval of the practice with 1 Cor 7. 2–5. On this notoriously difficult passage see also the discussion by Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 134–6;Google ScholarHurd, , 1 Corinthians, 169–75;Google ScholarDerrett, J. D. M., ‘The Disposal of Virgins’, Studies in the New Testament (vol. 1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977) 184–91.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Barrett, , I Corinthians, 185.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ From 1 Cor 7. 28 and 7. 36 it is clear that Paul acknowledges the authority of the male in marriage arrangements. Ibid., 176.

⁴⁶ See the anthropological discussion by Pitt-Rivers, J., ‘Honour and Social Status’, Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (ed. Peristany, J. G.; London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1965) 45;Google Scholarsee also the discussion in Malina, New Testament World (London: SCM, 1983) 42–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See for example Meeks, ‘Androgyne’, 202–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Eliade, M., Mephistopheles and the Androgyne (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965) 121.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On eschatological reservation see Cartlidge, D. R., ‘1 Corinthians 7 as a Foundation for a Christian Sex Ethic’, JR 55 (1975) 220–34.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See the discussion in Barrett, , I Corinthians, 179.Google Scholar

⁵¹ On holiness in the Christian community, Ibid., 181.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ On the similarities between Paul's position and the thought of his day see Balch, ‘1 Cor 7:32–35 and Stoic Debates’, 419–39.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Note, however, that with respect to new marriages, it appears that Paul believed that they should take place among members of the church. This is implied by his instruction that remarriage was acceptable for widows, but only ‘in the Lord’ (1 Cor 7. 39). See Malina, , New Testament World, 115–16.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ On the involvement of parents in arranging marriages for their children in Greco-Roman society see Balsdon, Roman Women, 173–7;Google Scholaron the role of the paterfamilias in relation to his daughter see Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930) 1–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ On the process of betrothal in the Roman world, see Corbett, , Law of Marriage, 1–23;Google ScholarBalsdon, , Roman Women, 177–9; on betrothal and Augustan legislation see esp. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 166.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Meeks, W., The First Urban Christians (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1983) 121.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ On celibacy as a gift see Barrett, , Corinthians, 158–9. On the possible relationship between glossolalia and abstinence from sexual intercourse see Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles, p. 118–20.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Yarbrough, , Not Like the Gentiles, 31–63; Yarbrough, ‘Elitist Sexual Ethics’, 15–16.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Trans. Oldfather, W. A., Discourses and Encheiridion (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University).Google Scholar

⁶¹ The moral legislation of 19/18 B.C.E. was consolidated and to some extent modified in 9 C.E. For the details of this legislation see Yarbrough, , Not Like the Gentiles, 4–6, n. 78; Balsdon Roman Women, 75–9, 89–90, 202, 230; Corbett, Law of Marriage, 119–21. On the enforcement of the Augustan legislation during the course of the first three centuries C.E. see Pomeroy, Goddesses, 166.Google Scholar

⁶² Balsdon, , Roman Women, 202.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid.Pomeroy, , Goddesses, 195–8;Google ScholarBrunt, P., Italian Manpower 225 B.C. -AD. 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 563–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Balsdon, , Roman Women, 14;Google Scholar see also 75, 197–8. On the relationship between wealth and the rejection of marriage see Polybius invective, Histories 36.17, 5–10 (trans. Paton, W. R.; 6 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cassius, Dio, Roman History 56.1–10 (trans. Cary, E.; 9 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University). See also Polybius, Histories 36.17, 5–10.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ This is against Yarbrough who argues that in rejecting marriage the Corinthians were not doing anything unusual; see ‘Elitist Sexual Ethics’, 20.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Pomeroy, , Goddesses, 212; see also Balsdon, Roman Women, 14, 241–2.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On evaluating the evidence for the involvement of women in cults see Meeks, , Urban Christians, 24–5.Google ScholarOn more women than men becoming full proselytes to Judaism see Thraede, K., ‘Frau’, RAC 8 (1972) 226–69.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Balch, D. L., Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBL Monograph Series 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981) 74; see also pp. 65–80.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Orig., C. Cels. 352; on Celsus see MacMullen, R., Christianizing the Roman Empire (AD. 100–400) (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1984) 37.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Juvenal, Satire 6.511; on Juvenal see Pomeroy, Goddesses, 221. See Plutarch, , Moralia 140D (trans. Babbitt, F. C.; 16 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University).Google ScholarOn women being susceptible to bizarre religious impulses see Vemer, , Household of God (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983) 177.Google Scholar

⁷² Balsdon, Roman Women, 206–7.Google Scholar

⁷³ See note 38 above. On the implications of Paul's offer to women of privileges of the marriage-free life see Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (London: SCM, 1983) 224–6. Fiorenza relies here on the conclusion of Pomeroy, Goddesses, 210–14.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ On the complexities of the Roman law of marriage in relation to the role of the father see Pomeroy, Goddesses, 150–63; Pomeroy, S. B., ‘The Relationship of the Married Woman to her Blood Relatives in Rome’, Ancient Society (1976) 215–27; Verner, Household of God, 40;Google ScholarCarcopino, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1940) 96.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ As Bryan Wilson's sociological work illustrates, concern for social respectability necessarily accompanies an effort to evangelize in religious sects; see ‘An Analysis of Sect Development’, Patterns of Sectarianism (London: Morrison and Gibb, 1967) 22–45. On the relationship between Wilson's findings and the situation in Paul's communities see MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 34–42.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Trans. Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University).Google Scholar