Late fourth century virginity:

(1)

0

Late fourth century virginity:

their justification and our explanation

Metha Hokke

S0979139

Ma scriptie RUG

GLTC

Begeleider: Dr. J.W. Drijvers

Tweede beoordelaar: Prof. Dr. M.A. Harder

(2)

1

A converted aristocratic Roman lady rewrote the biblical history from creation to ascension around mid-fourth century. Her epic is unique not so much in its reuse of Vergil’s words and imitation of his style, but as a lonely remnant of an attitude harmonizing the traditional senatorial values of family, propagation and possession with Christianity. This work of Faltonia Betitia Proba did get some recognition: it was read by emperors and criticized by Jerome. The decision of her relative Demetrias in AD 413 to take the veil, i.e. become a perpetual virgin, put her in the focus of the contemporary intellectual discourse. Jerome, Augustine and Pelagius sent her congratulating and exhorting letters.1

During this second half of the fourth century, a lot of texts were written to justify and propagate the lifestyle of perpetual virginity as the summit of Christian prestige, axiologically replacing the erstwhile prevailing values of continuation of family and transmission of

possession via marriage. Curious as to what arguments the patristic authors of these texts used for a lifestyle so much against the traditional Greek-Roman ideal of propagation, I read the main ones on virginity appearing in this period: Gregory of Nyssa On Virginity (371), Ambrose De Virginibus (377), Chrysostom On Virginity (382), Jerome Epistula 22 (384) and Augustine’s complementary treatises from 402 with the revealing titles De Bono Coniugali and De Sancta Virginitate.2 Having read these texts was one thing, in order to understand them it turned out I had to do a lot of background research. In this respect I was lucky. Just as there had been an explosion of theological literature on virginity in the late fourth century, so Peter Brown’s The Body and Society, Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early

Christianity (1988), about practices of and reflections on permanent sexual renunciation from

the first to the fifth century, had initiated a lot of research in this area. Inspired by

anthropological theory he sketches the large structures of the dissipation of the ascetic ideal from East to West (‘etic’ approach), whereas within individual writers or currents he connects the vision on the body and sexuality with world, or better cosmological views (‘emic’

approach). Participants in the ascetic debate have had a sometimes indirect influence on this extended essay: about the otherness of the classical perception of the body: Aline Rousselle

1_{Clark&Hatch,1981; Clark,1989:41-43; Hunter,2007:32,33,81.} 2

(5)

4

(1988), Teresa Shaw (1998), about Egypt: Susannah Elm (1994), about the development of Roman law with regard to women and family in late antiquity: Antti Arjava (1996), Judith Evans-Grubbs (1995).3 Kate Cooper verbalized my struggle in explaining asceticism in her books about images of late antique women (1996) and the fall of the Roman household (2007). Fundamental for my study is Elizabeth Clark’s erudite Reading Renunciation:

asceticism and scripture in early Christianity (1999). She demonstrates the similarities in the

argumentation of patristic writers on asceticism in the East and the West in what biblical texts they used and how they twisted what we now consider as the meaning of the author in their ascetic direction.4 Finally, David Hunter’s Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient

Christianity: the Jovinianist controversy (2007), who traces back the roots of a conflict

between the protagonist of equal rights of marriage and virginity, Jovinian, and our virginity writers to biblical texts and patristic writers.

In this extended essay I would like to study in depth two questions:

1) How did the Church Fathers justify virginity as a way of life superior to marriage?

2) Why did asceticism appear to be such a hot topic in the second half of the fourth century? The selected writers have determined my open definition of the central concept ‘virginity’. Jerome calls virginity a propositum, covering both the meaning of ‘firm intention to refrain from sexual intercourse out of devotion to God’ and ‘a chosen way of life’.5

Gregory of Nyssa tries to win young men over to the ideal, i.e. virginal lifestyle (parthenia), indicating that virginity cannot be limited to young girls who have not had sexual

intercourse.6 Widows resisting remarriage had become a secondary group within the

propositum hierarchy in our period, as can be demonstrated by Chrysostom adding to his thick

virginity treatise a flimsy text against the remarriage of widows (and widowers).7

For all our writers virginity is part of a Christian ascetical lifestyle. Three roots of this asceticism could be indicated: 1) the classical notion of self-control (egkrateia) and

temperance (sophrosynè) as components of virtue (aretè) 2) Neoplatonism: by practicing

3_{In the introduction to the new edition of Body and Society (2008) Brown acknowledges that he did not pay} sufficient attention to the development in Greek and Latin family and to Jewish studies. I did not look into the last area either, but this has been well covered by Daniel Boyarin Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic

culture (1993). (p.xv;l). Also, Brown considers his view on Egypt corrected by Averil Cameron and Elizabeth

Clark (and Elm, I think) in that he based his social reconstruction too much on propagandistic ascetic texts. (p.li). 4_{Cf.Brown,2008, xli: proof texts would have stressed the diversity of Christian attitudes.}

5_{Jer.Ep.22,3;22,29. Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD),2005:propositum:1) anything set before one as an intention} or objective 2) one’s chosen mode of conduct ... way of life.

6_{Parthenia refers in classical Greek (Liddell, Scott, Jones (LSJ),1961) almost exclusively to female virginity, as}

virginitas does in our fourth century West. I follow Greg.Nys. in using virginity as referring to men and women.

Aubineau,1966:145(young men).

(6)

5

(askèsis) the body in restriction of food, sexuality, social company the soul can be elevated to the higher spiritual source it came from8 3) Jesus’ social message of sacrificing one-self for the other with the accompanying heavenly reward. In practice Christian asceticism meant a withdrawn life with abstinence from worldly pleasures (sexuality, food, property, social status, care for outward appearance) and care for the poor, the ill, etc.. This life would enable one to concentrate better on one’s religious obligations in this life and lead to heaven.

Virginity was an important aspect of this lifestyle, but not for every Church Father the most important. Marriage, the other side of the coin, was acknowledged to be the natural, this-worldly phenomenon (virginity the supernatural), for rhetorical reasons described negatively to illuminate virginity the more. Long after the numerous virginity defending treatises Augustine linked his with a marriage defending treatise.9

My contribution to this debate are the following. In my description of the

development of virginity I took marriage into account. Just like virginity, the perception of marriage that seemed new and revolutionary in the fourth century marriage can be traced back to the first century. Christian perceptions (and practices) of marriage in the first century did not differ from the pagan ones. In the fourth century the practice of marriage did not differ either, though by the institutionalization of the virginity ideology, advocated by church leaders as the superior Christian lifestyle, the church distanced itself from the pagan

environment. My second contribution to the debate is that I tried to explain the popularity of asceticism in the late fourth century from the role played by the virginity writers.

In the first part I will first go into a full consideration of the main arguments used to defend virginity: scripture. (1) What did the patristic authors do with the pro-marriage texts of the Pastorals, how did they evaluate the balanced judgements of Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (1Cor.7) on the subject and what about the rather extreme pro-ascetic statements found in the Gospels? For the treatment of Song of Songs (S.o.S.) I used a different approach. Schooled as a protestant theologian specialized on New Testament (NT), I was not able to discuss the original text, but limited myself to how fourth century virginity writers digested Origen’s exegesis of this poem. Intertextuality is an important aspect of ancient literature. NT texts incorporated Old Testament (OT) ones, our fourth century writers did not only use texts from the Bible, but also from their patristic predecessors in support of virginity. Another argument can be adduced for studying Christian thinking about virginity in the second and

(7)

6

third century. (2) It took me a while to acknowledge the shortcoming in my protestant

theological schooling and to discover that virginity had its sympathisers from the beginning of Christianity.10 Starting with the Acts of Paul and Thecla with their revolutionary turn-around of the civil ideology of the Hellenistic novel, I will continue with the last patristic advocate of marriage, Clement of Alexandria, followed by Tertullian, who developed a sharp

anti-marriage stance later in life, and the writer of the first virginity treatise, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. Though during the last decade of the fourth century fallen into disgrace, no writer has had so much influence on our ascetic writers as the Neoplatonist Christian Origen. Finally, our fourth century virginity writers, being soaked in classical literature, were

influenced by the pagan ideas about sexual restraint and, more common, marriage. (3) Pagan sexual restraint was motivated by ritual, biological or philosophical reasons. Though from the fourth century BC sexual equality in general and within marital relations was a topic, at the end of the first century AD this issue got a lot of attention. The ideas of Musonius Rufus and Plutarch turn out to be very close to Paul or the writer of the Pastorals, whereas Statius poetically seems to reconsider the traditional ideal of masculinity. Juvenal’s influence cannot be limited to his fulminating against marriage.

In the second part I will concentrate on the question why virginity came so much into prominence in the second half of the fourth century. The ascetic ideal originated in the East and travelled to the West. (4) Then I will dilate upon the question whether there was a change in the perception of marriage in this period virginity came to the front. (5) Next, an evaluation of different explanations for the standing out of virginity in the late fourth century follows. My personal view will be reflected in the creation of a superior Christian identity for our ascetic virginity writers and their contribution to the polarisation of Christian-pagan relations using Julian, the development of a clerical hierarchy by ascetical proponents and the

distortion of the sources. The popular explanations of family strategy and female choice will be treated critically. (6) In the final chapter I will reflect on whether eschatological feelings were a ground for the writing of virginity treatises and how eschatology played a role in their ideas. (7)

(8)

7

PART ONE: THEIR JUSTIFICATION OF VIRGINITY

Liebeschuetz’ observation that Christian culture in East and West in the late fourth century, though military and politically drifting apart, is still basically undivided11 can be confirmed by the similar sources and arguments our patristic writers used to advocate virginity. The main proponents of virginity were in the East: Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom, in the West: Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. Their treatises were written in the period 371-402.

We start treating their sources: biblical and patristic and finish with an evaluation of pagan ideas about sexual restraint and pagan sources on marriage.

1. Biblical texts

Biblical texts counted as the strongest arguments in favour of virginity12. Because the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), dated to the end of the first century , generally were believed to be written by Paul, their defence of marriage had to be harmonized with the pro virginity interpretation of the genuine Pauline letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7 (1Cor.7) of around AD 5513. First I will study the Pastorals (mentioning Eph.5), then 1 Cor.7 and some ascetic texts from the Gospels, finishing with the ascetical interpretation of Song of Songs.

1.1. The Pastorals

In the Pastorals ‘Paul’ gave instructions to his fellow workers Timothy and Titus about how to run a Christian community: the selection of the leaders, criteria for the support of widows, advising about the behaviour of married women and about fighting heresies. Households are all-important in these recommendations14. The Roman ideal of the univira15 is here an ideal male characteristic for a leader: a bishop or a deacon must have been married once. Also, they should be head of a well run household, leading to Christian children and submissive wives.16 General requisites to become a leader within a Christian community, apart from being a good

11_{Liebeschuetz,2011:261,262.}

12_{Cf.2Tim.3:16:’All scripture is given by inspiration of God (theopneustos) and is profitable for doctrine, for} reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..’ Bible translation New King James Version (NKJV). 13

Jer.Ep.123:5: 1Cor.7 and 1Tim. should agree, being the works of the same author. For discrepancies signalized by Jerome and Chrysostom: Clark,1999:353.

14_{Cf.1Tim.5:8: ‘.. if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has} denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.’ NKJV This goes very much against Jerome’s praise of Paula leaving her children to follow him to Bethlehem (Jer.Ep.108).

15

MacCullough,2011:176: ‘A univira was a woman who had only been married once, never divorced. It was used in two senses: one, if her husband was still living, and two, if she predeceased her husband..’ Lightman, 1977:19-20 describes the application of the univira ideal to widows by Tertullian and Jerome.

16

(9)

8

teacher, are comparable to those of being a good citizen, pagan or Christian: not open to attack, i.e. perfect, prudent, hospitable, a moderate lover of wine, money and fights.17 The reputation outside the community of the leader and members of his household is important.18 The support of widows by the Christian community seems to be a bit of a problem. Though comparable moral standards as applied to male leaders are asked from widows (leading a blameless life, filled with good works, hospitable19), the univira requirement (or prohibition on remarriage) for widows younger than 60 is strongly advised against. The following two reasons are adduced. The first one deserves a quote:

Every time they behave wantonly towards Christ, they want to marry, being condemned because of the rupture of their first promise.20

So the first argument is lust on the part of young widows.21 Further, celibacy changes the lifestyle of young widows and not for the better: the idle women go around socializing and gossiping, resulting in a bad name for the Christian community.22 A third reason is produced in the emphasis on the responsibility of the family in supporting a widow. Only a ‘real widow’, i.e. without family and fulfilling certain requirements can be financially kept by the Christian community.23 A last reason might be the authority independent, celibate widows exercised within the community.24 Elderly women, who also are characterized as leaders in their moral posture (appropriate holy behaviour, no slander or wine addiction) are expected to teach younger, married women about their appropriate behaviour. ‘Paul’ in his letter to Titus is ambiguous about the right attitude of the wife towards her husband: the catalogue of

behavioural tips starts with love for the husband (followed by love for their children) and ends with submission to the husband. The advocated unequal relationship within marriage is

stronger in the somewhat older (and also falsely ascribed to Paul) Letter to the Ephesians (Eph.), where the wife is expected to respond to her husband’s love for her with subjection to

17_{1Tim.3:2: perfect (anepilèmptos), prudent (nèphalios or sophron), hospitable (philoxenos), no wine lover (mè}

paroinos), no fight lover (amachos), no money lover (aphilarguros) 1Tim.3:8-13: also the deacon and his wife

should be respectable (semnos). Testing will proof him blameless (anegklètos) and her not a slanderer (diabolos), prudent (nèphalios) and reliable (pistos). Tit.1:6: the presbyter must be anegkètos.

18_{1Tim.3:7; cf.3:11(wives); 1Tit.1:6 (children).} 19

1Tim.5:7: blameless (anepilèmptos), 1Tim.5:9,10. 20_{1Tim.5:11,12.}

21_{Katastrèniao is translated as ‘to behave wantonly towards’ in this context (L.S.J.). Clark does not comment on} this intriguing text. Does ‘their first promise’ refer to a celibacy promise taken by Christian widows?

22_{1Tim.5:13-15.} 23

1Tim.5:3-17, starting and ending with ontos (adv.) widows. A church supported widow has to be older than 60, univira, has to have raised children and to be known for her good deeds. So remarriage of widows excluded them from financial support from the Christian community in the future! Clark,1999:364.

24

(10)

9

him and phobos (both fear and respect) for him. Though this relationship is described as an allegory for the relationship between Christ (husband) and the Church (wife), the literal meaning of the ideal marriage stands. This Eph. text will become important in our fourth century virginity discussion, but the linking of wifely subjection to the situation in paradise in 1Timothy will be the core argumentation. The wife, created after man as naturally inferior, is responsible for letting sin end the idyll of paradise by being deceived. She is even sketched as continuing to be the weak link through which heretics can enter the household!25 Yet, even for women salvation is possible. Though for neither Jesus nor Paul procreation seems to have been the reason for marriage, the Pastorals follow the traditional classical pattern of marriage, household and children as the natural and religious goal of female life.26 Linking Eve’s sin and the subsequent female submission with giving birth as female saving event is both revolutionary27 and one of the main biblical criticisms against the virginity ideal for women. The firm statement probably hinted at a strong ascetic current in the community, made explicit in eschatological terms:

Now the Spirit expressly says clearly that in latter times some will depart from their faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy ... forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

This passage is closed with a defence of the goodness of God’s creation:

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving...28 The connection between eschatology and creation and the issue of the goodness of creation are major topics in the fourth century asceticism debate. The Church Fathers seem not to have taken this text as a real prediction and justification to speed up the end time by propagating asceticism, but applied the label of ‘false teachers’ to their adversaries: from Marcion to the Encratites, Montanists, Manichaeans and ‘heretical’ virgins.29

Clark, inspired by Derrida and Foucault, calls attention to how the fourth century commentators on biblical texts think to extract the implicit meaning from a text, but in fact by

25_{Tit.2:3-5; Eph.5:22-33(starting and ending with wifely subjection); 1Tim.2:11-15(link with creation);} 2Tim.3:6,7.

26_{1Tim.2:15;5:14; Tit.2:5 (oikourgos) Cf.1Tim.2:11,12:’en hèsuchia’: withdrawn, at home Cf. Evans Grubbs,} 1995:56,57:female qualities: pudicitia(sexual modesty), castitas(sexual fidelity within marriage), univira, industrious in household duties.

27_{Cf.Gen.3:16: God punished Eve for sinning by making her pregnancies harder, making deliveries painful,} introducing lust for her husband and his rule over her.

28

(11)

10

interpreting rewrite the text.30 The following strategies have been used to interpret the

Pastorals ascetically: translation, gender-bending, spiritual interpretation, reading virgins into the texts and ‘answering back’31

. The translation of sophrosynè in the Pastorals into Latin is an example of adaptation to asceticism. It describes a quality for matrons (1Tim.2:15), while bishops (1Tims.3:2;Tit.1:8) and presbyters (Tit.2:2) should be (the accompanying adjective)

sophron. The classical meaning of this word (LSJ) is ‘soundness of mind’, but also

‘moderation in sensual desires, self-control’. Pelagius translates it as sobrietas (moderation), Jerome with castitas. Jerome interprets the classical virtue chastity within marriage in an ascetical sense. For matrons this ‘purity’ implies bearing children who will remain virgins, thus compensating for their own ‘loss and decay’ as matrons. Bishops are castus, because they abstain from sexual relationships with their wives during their episcopate and teach earlier begotten children virginity.32 Clement of Alexandria provides an example of ‘gender-bending’ in that not only women, but also married men (from laymen to bishops) are saved by ‘childbearing’ (1Tim.2:15), if their marriages remain ‘blameless’.33

As the praise on human fertility in the OT and NT would mean that virgins were cursed, Origen comes up with an allegorical interpretation of children as virtues, thereby influencing all our Church Fathers.34 All kind of rhetorical devices are used to explain that virginity is not mentioned in the bible. The a fortiori argument: if women’s behaviour is restrained in 1Tim.2:8-15, how much the more would this be implied for virgins (Ambrose)? A struggling Chrysostom contradicts himself in his ex negativo reasoning. He explains away the absence of virgins in 1Tim.5:3 (‘honour widows’) with either there were no virgins yet, or they had fallen from their high position, while virgins being ignored in the chastisement of widows (1Tim.5:15) would be caused by that virgins had not fallen.35 In the Pastorals’ Wirkungsgeschichte two of our ascetic debaters are important: Jovinian and Chrysostom.

Jovinian, condemned in 393 by the Roman and Milanese synods, after Jerome had written Adversus Jovinianum, our main source of Jovinian’s ideas, derives some crucial arguments from the Pastorals. Himself a celibate, he was more tolerant towards asceticism than the Pastorals and he argued an equal status for virgins, widows and married women, if

30_{Clark,1999:3-10,371,372.}

31_{To the ‘answering back’ strategy I will return treating Jovinian.}

32_{Jer.Adv.Iov.1.27; Ep.66:3(matrons); 1.34-35(bishops) < Clark,1999:113-115; Clark,1986:360.} 33

Clem.Alex.Stromata 3.12.90 <Clark,1999:140.

34_{Clark,1999:193,194: human fertility as divine blessing: Ps.113:9,128:3; Deut.7:13,14. Also, Origen interpreted} 1Tim.2:15 as referring to the divine childbearing of the Virgin, bringing salvation (Fragm.20 Hom.Luc.) < Clark, 1999:358.

(12)

11

they did comparable good works after baptism. In accordance with Tit.3:4-736 not human effort (for instance practising asceticism) saved people, but God’s mercy in baptism resulting in rebirth in the Holy Spirit. So for Jovinian, it is either being damned or saved based on baptism and the appropriate behaviour afterwards without differences in rewards in the end.37 Jovinian does make direct use of 1Tim.4:1-5: receiving food with thanksgiving is just as holy as fasting. His arguments in favour of marriage he partly based on Pastoral texts with their recommendations of marriage for clergy, widows and childbearing for women38. Jerome used Paul’s 1Cor.7:29 (men should have wives as if they had not) to refute texts favourable to marriage as 1Tim.2:15;5:14 and Hebr.13:4.39 Jovinian’s condemnation by the Roman synod was influenced by the popularity of his rejection of the superiority of the ascetic way of life (celibacy, fasting) amongst the Roman clergy. The background of the Milanese condemnation is Jovinian’s personal attack on Ambrose’s propaganda for the in partu virginity of Mary. Jovinian followed Origen’s mainstream thinking of Mary’s virginity in conception, rejecting Ambrose’s doctrine of Mary’s intact virginity during delivery as Manichean. The last doctrine can be traced back into the second century apocryphal Protoevangelium Iacobi, the oldest source for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Accepting Mary’s virginity in partu could lead to the suspicion of docetism: Christ only seemed to have a physical body and so did not really suffer on the cross. As the Manichaeans thought along this line, Jovinian’s accusation of Ambrose as Manichean was not unfounded.40

For Chrysostom, the Pastorals are a main source of ascetic thinking in the observation that love of money is the root of all evil or that women should adorn themselves with good works.41 He struggles to harmonize the two causes of female subjection from 1Tim.2:12-14: the natural one as being created second after Adam and the moral one as punishment for

36

Hunter,2007:17-50 is my main source for the Jovinian reconstruction. Though Tit.3:5b (salvation by loutron

paliggenesias kai anakainosis pneumatos hagiou) excellently formulates what Hunter says about Jovinian’s

argument for equal status and eventual rewards of virgins, widows and married women and the general meaning of the baptismal ritual, Hunter (and Jovinian?) bases these argument mainly on Matt.25:34-41; John 6:56;8:44; 14:23;17:20-23.

37_{The interpretation of the parable of the Sower (Matt.13:3-9) or the house with the many (different!) rooms} (John 14:2). Though also 2Tim.2:20,21 would lend itself to a likewise interpretation, I cannot find any trace in Clark,1999 of its use for differences in reward in the ascetic debate.

38_{1Tim.3:2,4;Tit.1:6(married clergy);1Tim.5:14(remarriage widows);1Tim.2:14-15(salvation of women by} childbearing). Other pro marriage texts: Hebr.13:4;1Cor.7:39;2Cor.9:5(apostles had wives). Also: wives of patriarchs and arguments based on reason, later addressed by Augustine, such as what would happen to the human race if everyone became a virgin or why genitals and mutual sexual attraction were created. 39

Jer.Adv.Jov.1.5 An example of the ‘answering back’ strategy of ascetic interpretation < Clark, 1999:355. 40_{Ambrose’s accusation of Jovinian being a Manichean was completely unjustified. Hunter,1999:22-26} (p.23:Ambrose’s accusation);177-181(Protoevangelium);190-192(Jerome (and Origen) acknowledge only Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus and her post partum virginity).

(13)

12

introducing sin into creation.42 The female road to salvation, childbearing, raises amongst others the following problem for Chrysostom. Could virgins, barren wives and childless widows not be saved?43

The Pastorals provide guidelines for the ideal functioning of the Christian community and household. Our fourth century virginity writers will revise the Pastorals’ connection creation- female submission within marriage- procreation as salvation with virginity as the way out into salvation. Now we will look at what our Church Fathers saw as the core of their pro virginity arguments: 1 Cor.7.

1.2. 1 Corinthians 7

In 55, Paul wrote 1 Cor.7 to the Christian community he founded in Corinth some years earlier, answering their questions: about (peri) sexual abstinence (7:1) and about unmarried youngsters (7:25).

Paul advises against the vision of some Corinthians that sexual abstinence is good (7:1-9). But his advice is pastorally ambiguous and formulated as a concession (6). Fear to succumb to porneia (2) (fornication, unchastity), later characterized as a want of self-control to withstand the devil (5) is mentioned as the reason for marriage, not the classical and Jewish reason of procreation.44 The relations between spouses are described as reciprocal and

intimate, especially when compared to those in the Pastorals. Within marriage a wife can claim (sexual) ownership of her husband’s body as much as he can of hers. The only reason wife and husband can withdraw from one another is for prayer, and that temporarily and by mutual consent. (5) Paul’s wish for the unmarried and widows (even then seemingly a

separate group within the church), is that they remain as they are and he is: virgin. (8) He also ends his letter with his opinion for which he thinks he has the support of God’s spirit that a widow will be more makarios (blessed, happy) as a celibate than when remarried. (39b,40). Paul bases his preference for virginity on three grounds. Everyone has his own gift (charisma (7)) or calling (17) from God according to which he or she has to live. Virginity is not meant for everyone. A second argument is partly traditional, partly practical. Paul wants to spare the Corinthians the burdensomeness of marriage (thlipsis, oppression in the flesh) (28b) and wishes them to be amerimnos (carefree) (32). Having to care for a husband or wife and other worldly affairs detracts one’s attention from God. Only unmarried, one can devote oneself

42_{Clark,1993:235-38; 1979:3-8.} 43_{Clark,1999:357,358; 1993:241,242.} 44

(14)

13

entirely to God. (32-34) Most important, however, as ground for virginity is Paul’s expectation of a near ending of the world. This makes him plead for a maintenance of the status quo and results in a kind of Stoic indifference towards conditions in life. Unless it is the wish of an unbelieving spouse, a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is not to be ended. (21b-16)45 Christians should accept conditions as circumcision or slavery as irrelevant. (17-24) In the same vein, a bit more authoritative, Paul gives his opinion about the unmarried youngsters, now with the eschatological ground: ‘I suppose.... because of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is’. (26) Don’t break up your engagement and do not look for a spouse when you are celibate. Marrying is not sinful, but makes the present situation harder. Marriage itself does not seem to be great fun anymore, as it starts an enumeration of states to which the Christian in the end of time should have an attitude ‘as if not’. Because little time is left, let married men live as if they were unmarried. (29) Marriage, emotions (weeping, rejoicing), acquiring property, all have become irrelevant in a world46 that passes away. (31)

The ban on divorce, which was characteristic for Christianity compared to the Jewish and Greek-Roman environment, is traced back to the ultimate source of authority: Jesus himself, a Herrenwort. The ban on divorce starts with the wife as initiator of a divorce, with the appeal to the divorcee either to remain unmarried or to be reconciled with her husband. Also the husband is not allowed to divorce his wife and so again within the marital

relationship the spouses are treated equally. (10,11) Paul does not give a foundation for Jesus’ prohibition; the Gospels Mark and Matthew do. The context in the parallels is a discussion with the Pharisees. Jesus bases his ban on divorce on the creation myth. God created human beings as male and female. That is why a man shall leave his parents and be joined to his wife and the two shall be one flesh.47 Mark and Matthew add that what God has joined together, no man is allowed to separate. Jesus explains away the argument of the Pharisees that Moses allowed a husband to send away his wife with a certificate of divorce out of the hardness of their heart. The closure of the episode differs. Both conclude that a husband who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery. For Mark, this also applies to wives divorcing

45_{In itself an interesting case: the hallowing of the unbelieving spouse is caused by the fact that children with} one Christian parent must be sacred. (14) The salvation of the unbelieving spouse, however, is uncertain. (16). 46

To schèma tou kosmou. Schèma meaning characteristic property of something (LSJ 6), the Dutch NBG translation of ‘the world as we know it’ is nicely found.

(15)

14

their husbands, Matthew keeps the male perspective and permits divorce by the husband in case of sexual immorality of the wife.48

How did our Church Fathers rewrite 1Cor.7 ascetically, evading the accusation of being Manichaeans who denigrate reproduction? 1Cor.7:1 ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman49’ was not interpreted as an observation of the Corinthians, but as Paul’s exhortation to universal abstinence.50 Against the background of the Stoic principle that the opposite of virtue is vice, Tertullian concluded that if abstinence was the virtue, sexual intercourse within marriage must be evil, influencing Jerome.51 In general, however, Paul’s ideal of sexual abstinence was considered as meant for an ascetic elite.52 According to Jerome 1Cor.7:2-4 (preventing porneia as reason for marriage and sexual reciprocity within marriage) is aimed at men married before their conversion. A Christian should have resisted marriage! For second century Clement of Alexandria ‘giving conjugal rights’ meant reproduction.53 Origen argues equality of the couple based on these verses. Chrysostom excludes mutual sexual and

financial relations within marriage from the natural dominance of the husband.54 More often, these verses have been used to argue the repressive nature of marriage.55 Withdrawal into abstinence is only possible with mutual consent, while the ban on divorce prevents a Christian from a rash decision to marry. Intriguing is Augustine’s reasoning against the Manichaeans (one of their arguments for the rejection of the OT being the sexual behaviour of the

patriarchs): as barren Sarah owned Abraham’s body as wife, he had intercourse with Hagar not out of lust, but complying to Sarah’s wish. The fiercest adversary of marriage, Jerome, manages both to use the pro-marriage sense of 1Cor.7:2-5a positively as part of his argument and at the same time to turn marriage into something shameful. He acknowledges that Paula’s daughter-in-law, Laeta, as a wife did not have power over her own body, but that she had paid for her loss of virginity by the dedication of her daughter to virginity.56 Paul’s warning of the

48_{Mk.10:2-12; Matt.19:3-9. Lk.16:18 forbids remarriage by men. 1Cor.7:11 agamos is feminine, explicitly} banning remarriage for women, disrupting the equal treatment Paul advocated before.

49

Gunè could mean both woman and wife. In the first case celibacy is meant, in the second sexual abstinence within marriage. Both translations can be defended.

50_{E.g.Chrys.Hom.19 ICor.I; Jer. Adv.Jov.1.7 < Clark,1999:266, nt.26. Clark,1999:259-329 (Chapter X) offers a} detailed analysis of the ascetic interpretation of 1Cor.7, from which I will borrow my examples.

51

Tert.Ad Ux.1.3.2-4; Exh.Cast.3.7-10; Mon.3.2-6 <Clark,1999:267,268. 52_{Aug.Nupt.et Concupisc.1.16.18; Chrys.Hom.19 ICor.1 <Clark,1999:269.} 53_{Jer.Adv.Jer.1.7; Clem.Strom.3.18.107.5 <Clark,1999:271.}

54_{Orig.Comm.ICor.7:3; Chrys.Hom.19 ICor.I, basing male dominance on Gen.3:16 and Eph.5:25,33 <Clark,} 1999:274.

55

Marriage enslaves the husband to the wife, e.g.Origen Comm. ICor.7:27; Jer.Ep.145; Chrys.Mulier Alligata 1. 56_{Aug.Con.Adult.1.8.8(marital equality leads to prohibition of divorce); Ep.127.9(abstinence); Con.Faust.22.31;}

Civ.Dei 16.38;16.25 (Abraham); Jer.Adv.Jov.1.7 (divorce ban prevents rash marriage); Ambrose Exh.Virg.10.62; Vid.11.69(marriage means bondage for wife, as is Monica’s opinion Aug.Conf. 9.9.19)

(16)

15

potential threat of adultery, if partners abstained too long from sexual intercourse to dedicate themselves to prayer, ‘temptation by Satan’ (1Cor.7:5) was generalized by Jerome to refer to sexual intercourse within marriage.57 For Jerome, the vision that temporary abstinence would encourage temperance in marital sexual relations did not go far enough. The temporariness of the abstinence was meant as a foretaste for practising perpetual celibacy. 58 1Cor.7:5 is one of the few texts interpreted along lines of ritual purity: prayer as contact with holiness is

incompatible with the pollution brought about by sexuality, based on OT texts. Origen had been authoritative with two OT examples in this context. Ambrose concluded from the pollution by sexual activity that marriage in itself was defiling, while the later Augustine saw a sinful aspect inherent in lust.59 Paul’s emphasis on his own virginal state as example60 became an issue in the ascetic debate because of his realistic interjection that celibacy is a

charisma, gift, not meant for everyone. This reminds one of Matt.19:11,12, where self-chosen

celibacy (making oneself eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake) is presented as a mystery, whose meaning is given to few. Origen expands the charisma character to marriage, whose fruit would be symphonia, concord. This concord is achieved by a ruling husband and an obeying wife.61 Accepting virginity as a gift does not do justice to human effort.62 Though Paul directs his advice (virginity) and concession (marriage) (1Cor.7:7-9) to the unmarried and widows, Origen thinks the concession is meant exclusively for widows: remarriage goes against sophrosynè (temperance) and phusis (nature).63 Paul’s concession to widows to remarry (1Cor.7:9,39) was abrogated by the Holy Spirit according to Tertullian, while his contemporary Clement of Alexandria greeted remarriage with approval.64 Jerome, even against first marriages, thought that it would be better widows did not know about Paul’s concession of remarriage for them. Rather opportunistically, however, he took Paul’s reason for marriage (‘burning’ of passion) as excuse for the remarriage of even a divorcee, one of his

57

Jer.Adv.Iov.1.7;1.8 <Clark,1999:273.

58_{Clement of Alexandria Strom.3.12.79.1; Ambrose Ep.63.32 (temperance). Jer.Adv.Jov.1.12. Jerome was not} the only author with this view and thought differently (after separation for prayer return to reproductive task, followed by continence) elsewhere (Comm.Eccles.3.5). <Clark,1999:282.

59

Before Origen Tert.Exh.Cast.10.3-4 (<Lev.11:44-45). Origen Comm. ICor.7:5 (abstinence from wives before approaching God (Ex.19:15) and before taking holy bread (1Sam.21:4-6)); Ambr.Exh.Vir.10.62 (<Eccl.9:8); Aug.Con.Faust.30.5, etc.. <Clark,1999:279,280.

60_{1Cor.7:7(in general),8(for unmarried and widows). What about widowers?}

61_{Origen Comm.ICor.7:7; Comm.Matt.14-16; Jer.Adv.Iov.1.8 Cf. Poitiers,1996:11-16:Paul’s prophetic} self-understanding causes prophecy to be the gift, celibacy a consequence of it. <Clark,1999:283,284.

62_{Chrys.Hom.23 IICor.6; Hom.19 ICor.2; Virg.36.1;36.3 <Clark,1999:285-287. Terms as akrasia (5),}

egkrateuomai (8) (to exercise self-control) plead against a fatalistic attitude towards celibacy.

63

Origen Comm.ICor.7:8-12 <Clark,1999:288.

(17)

16

female friends, Fabiola.65 Augustine rises above the contrast of marriage and unfulfilled sexual longing (burning) by pointing at the superior state of the virgin who is unhampered by lust.66 Puroesthai also has been interpreted as the passive infinitive form of puroo: to be burnt, implying as fornicator in hell. Tertullian concludes from this meaning a negative evaluation of marriage in general.67

The Herrenwort forbidding divorce (1Cor.7:10,11 cf.27) raised the following problem. In their refutation of the rejection of the continuing validity of the OT for Christians by

heretical movements like the Manichaeans or Marcionites, the Church Fathers had to explain the discrepancies with regard to divorce between OT and the Gospels. For Cyprian, Paul’s prohibition of divorce shows Christian superiority compared to the laxer Moses, who allowed men to send away their wives with a divorce certificate (Deut.24:1-3).68 Both Moses and Paul could only claim the authority of human concilium, advice, not divine imperium, command. Reference to the creation myth (Gen.1-2) would ‘prove’ that divorce was not part of God’s plan with mankind. If God would have wanted divorce, He would have created two women from Adam, enabling him to reject one, Chrysostom mused.69 Augustine found an ingenious solution to the different exception clauses of 1Cor.7:15 (divorce initiated by the unbelieving spouse) and Matt. 19:9 (unchastity of wife): the concept of porneia included fornication and idolatry and so the two texts could be harmonized.70 In accordance with Roman law,

Augustine permitted both husband and wife to ask for a divorce after adultery of the other. Christian divorce differed from the Roman and Jewish practice in that both spouses could not remarry after divorce. The mutuality of the marital relations continued to be valid, as

Augustine explained it. Remarriage after a divorce would imply adultery. Reconciliation, of course, was to be preferred over divorce.71 Only Chrysostom pleads against reconciliation,

65_{Jer.Ep.79.10(widows’ desired ignorance); Ep.77.3(Fabiola) <Clark,1999:288.}

66_{Aug.Sanct.Virg.56.57. Cf.Tert.Ad Ux.1.3.2-4: it is much better neither to marry nor to burn.} <Clark,1999:289,268.

67_{Tert.Pud.16.15-16(hellfire-fornicators); Mon.3.4-5:’What sort of good is it that is understood to be better than} a penalty?’.

68_{Continuing validity of OT <Lk.16:17;Rom.7:7-25. Cyprian, Ad Quirinum 3.90 < Clark, 1999:291.} 69

Ambr.Exp.Luc.8.2;8.4;8.7-8;Chrys.Mul.All.2 <Clark,1999:245,246,292,327 nt.394.

70_{Aug. De diversis questionibus octoginta tribus 83; De sermone Domini in monte 1.16.43. The background of} this thinking are the OT texts (Hos.1-2; Ezek.16;23; Jer.2:20-25;3:1-3), where Israel’s apostasy is described as fornication. Clark,1999:248,296. According to some writers the exception mentioned in Matt.19:9; 5:32 are inclusions from the first half of the fourth century. (Clark,1999:242, nt.39)

71

(18)

17

because the wife will once more be subjected to the woes of marriage. The only situation he can imagine leading to divorce is a one-sided decision for continence within the marriage.72

Jerome’s causal linking of Jesus’ ban on divorce in the Gospels with Paul’s ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman’ (1Cor.7:1) shows the importance of the Christian ban on divorce for the fourth century celibacy debate.73 The same linking is done in Matt.19:10, depending on how the tone of the comment of the disciples on Jesus’ anti-divorce teaching is interpreted. Jerome and Ambrose take their comment: ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry’ as their conclusion from Jesus’ interdiction of divorce that celibacy is to be preferred to the burden of marriage. Non-ascetically, with an exclamation point, it could be interpreted as an expression of disbelief by the Jewish disciples. Chrysostom sees this insight of the disciples as a sign for Jesus that they are ready to receive the esoteric message of ‘becoming eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens’ (Matt.19:12).74

Because Paul’s advice of the acceptance of the status-quo was not understood, Origen, followed by Jerome, allegorically interpreted the contradictions uncircumcised-circumcised and slave-free as referring to marriage-celibacy.75 As, apart from the later Tertullian, the patristic writers did not expect an imminent ending of the world, Paul’s eschatological terminology as ‘the present distress’ (7:26) was considered to refer to the woes of marriage, ‘the oppression in the flesh’ (7:28) Paul wanted to protect his readers against.76

‘The present distress’, ‘the oppression in the flesh’ and the ‘shortness of time’ (7:29) were also applied to the mortal existence of human beings. Given the shortness of life compared to eternity, the choice for evading oppression by a husband and having a higher reward in the hereafter seems self-evident. Or, as Gregory of Nyssa reasons after reading 1Cor.7:32-35 (the attention of the married is distracted from God by worldly concerns as a spouse): because Christians cannot please in two marriages, they should choose the better, namely to Christ.77 This episode raises two questions: what is the difference between a woman and a virgin and secondly if a virgin is ‘holy in body and spirit’, where does this leave a wife? Tertullian distinguishes woman as general category from the distinctive category of virgin, thus saving virgin Mary’s being

72

Chrys.Virg.40.2(against reconciliation); Hom.19 ICor.2; Hom.86 Matt.4 <Clark,1999:293. 73_{Jer.Adv.Iov.1.7.}

74_{Jer.Adv.Iov.1.12; Ambr.Virg.6.29; Chrys.Virg.13.3 <Clark,1999:243,142.}

75_{Clark,1999:299-303 for references. Origen had great difficulty to identify uncircumcision with marriage!} Marriage as slavery: Origen Comm.1Cor.7:27; Jer.Ep.145 <Clark,1999:306.

76

(19)

18

called mulier, woman in Gal.4.4. For Chrysostom a married woman differs from a virgin not so much in having an active sexual life as in a distracting domestic life. He alludes to the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt.25:1-13), which was very popular in its ascetic interpretation. The wise virgins had stripped themselves from domestic care.78 Clark states that patristic exegesis denies that holiness in body and spirit of the unmarried (7:34a) is a purity matter. Yet, Jerome deduces from the holiness of virgins in body and spirit the impurity of marriage. Ambrose clearly formulates the grounds for the choice for either marriage or virginity, thereby valuing it: marriage is a remedy against sexual temptation, while virginity aims at the reward. Though Augustine defends the spiritual and bodily purity of chaste wives by quoting 1Cor.6:19 (all Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit), for him and for all our Church Fathers virgins are entitled to a higher reward.79

Concluding, the general ascetic view that marriage is acceptable, but virginity

preferable80, more virtuous and leading to higher rewards was for a large part supported by an ascetic reading of 1Cor.7. Paul’s eschatological urgency explaining his preference for

virginity escapes our fourth century writers. Their interpretations in what they consider as Paul’s advice for sexual abstinence ranges from allowing marriage to prevent porneia to an abhorrence of sexual intercourse as evil. Paul’s recommended sexual equality within marriage and the ban on divorce would have been meant to deter from marriage. Divorce became a hot item, because against the heretics the unity of the OT, permitting divorce initiated by the husband, and the NT had to be defended. God’s marriage command in Genesis was posed against Moses’ permission of divorce!

1.3. Some Gospel texts

Unambiguous texts propagating divorce as Lk.14:25-27 (to follow Jesus means hating one’s wife, relatives and oneself) and 18:29 (leaving house, wife and relatives will be rewarded in present and future time) seem to have received little attention. Clement of Alexandria did not think Jesus wanted to abrogate the Decalogue: Ex.20:12 (honour thy father and mother) would rein in the sharpness of Lk.14:26, a text used by his extreme ascetic opponents.81 Against his Manichaean adversary, Augustine derides without good arguments that Lk.18:29

78_{Tert.Virg.Vel.4-5; Chrys.Hom.19 ICor.6; Hom.78 Matt.2; Matt.25:1-13 <Clark,1999:313,314.}

79_{Clark,1999:315; Jer.Adv.Helv.20; Ambr.Exh.Virg.7.46; Aug.Bon.Con.11.13; Bon.Vid.5.7;6.8; Chrys.Hom.10}

ITim.1.

80

Clem.Strom.3.12.79.1-2; Aug.Doct.Christ.3.17.25; Chrys.Virg.78.1; Ambr.Virg.1.6.24, etc. <Clark, 1999:321,322.

81_{Clem.Strom.3.15.97 <Clark,1999:198,287. Fearing being associated with Manichaeism (young Augustine was} Manichaeist, Jerome, the later Augustine and Ambrose were accused of Manichaeism), they might have

(20)

19

would counter the divorce ban in Matt.19:9.82 A positive use of Lk.14:26 was made by Basil of Caesarea, brother of Gregory of Nyssa. Though he agreed with 1Cor.7:4 that a married man only could become a monk, when his wife consented in sexual abstinence, he offered Lk.14:26 as an excuse for a potential monk.83 Jerome thinks that in Lk.18:27-30 Jesus is ordering Peter and other married disciples to cut off the ties with their former life, amongst others with their wives. Peter must have been either divorced or widower then.84

Understandably, a text as Lk.20:34-36 became prominent in the ascetic debate:

The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

This text was used by Marcion and the opponents of Clement of Alexandria to reject

marriage. Cyprian already applied it to the condition of virgins in this world: they led the life of the angels, as they escaped being subjected to a husband and suffering from childbirth. Athanasius considered the singleness of angels a recommendation for virginity, while Gregory of Nyssa reasoned that we could accelerate our final condition without marriage by choosing for virginity now.85

In short, the patristic writers did not value the two strictly ascetic Lucan texts that ordered a complete rupture with ordinary, civic life. But they gave an ascetical interpretation to another Lucan text, popular with heretics: virgins could start living the life of the angels, promised by Jesus for the hereafter, here and now.

1.4. Song of Songs

Not all fourth century virginity writers argued from the same biblical ‘proof’ texts. 86

Ambrose and Jerome both take up Origen’s allegorical exegesis of the Song of Songs (S.o.S.)

82

Aug.Con.Adim.3 In Ep.157:31Augustine assumes Lk.18:29 refers to mixed (pagan-Christian) marriages. < Clark,1999:242,243,296.

83_{Basil of Caesarea Regulae fusius tractatae 12 <Clark,1999:275,198 nt.139.}

84_{Jer.Adv.Iov.1.26. Jerome ignores the parallel texts Matt.19:29,Mk.10:29,30, where a wife has not been} mentioned. Peter had a mother-in-law(Mk.1:30). Deut.33:9, given as parallel text for Lk.14:26 (Nestle), where the Levite’s exclusive allegiance to God implies estrangement of his relatives, would have nicely supported Jerome’s view.

85_{NKJV. The parallel texts Mk.12:25, Matt.22:30 mention the disappearance of marriage after the resurrection} and the resurrected becoming like angels in heaven. Tert.Adv,Marc.4.38.5-7;Clem.Strom.3.12.87;

Cypr.Hab.Virg.22; Athan.Ep.Virg.16; Greg.Nys.Opif.Hom.17.2 <Clark,1999:199,200. Also, Chrys.Virg.78.6 and Aug.Con.Faust.30.6; Bon.Vid.5.7 valued a virginal life as angelic. <Clark,1999:322.

(21)

20

as referring to the relationship between Christ and his bride, the individual soul or the

Church.87 Our virginity writers replace Origen’s ‘individual soul’ with the virgin as Christ’s bride . Ambrose interprets virginity in a platonic sense: virginity reflects like a mirror the

species of chastity and the forma of virtue.88 ‘Christ is the affianced husband of the virgin and, if it can be put that way, Christ is the affianced husband of virginal chastity.’ The principle virtue of virginity within the individual virgin as partner in her marital relationship with Christ is abstracted from its individuality, making the virgin a tiny cog in the machine of the Church.89 Yet, for the individual virgin, this relationship is portrayed as personal and concrete, miles apart from the S.o.S. text characterizing virginity as: ‘a garden closed, a fountain sealed’ or the accumulation of references from the same poem to the union with Christ.90

The physicality of Jerome’s interpretation of the marital relationship between the virgin and Christ can be seen as a reaction to Ambrose and is influenced by Basil of Ancyra’s visualizing the relationship virgin-Christ as sexual.91 Jerome’s idiosyncracy is that he

expressed the religious experience of virginity in this life and the reward for virginity hereafter in explicit sexual terms borrowed from S.o.S, whereas the punishment for a fallen virgin is described in biblical terms of sexual humiliation. Confined to her bedroom to avoid sexual temptation, the groom will come to play with the sleeping virgin, touching her belly with his hand.92 The condemnation of the outdoor searching for the groom is explained by his

87_{Especially Hosea, but also Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Apocalypse use the marriage metaphor to refer to the} relationship between God and Israel with the negative image of God’s spouse being a meretrix, an adulteress in the sense of committing idolatry. Judaism has always interpreted S.o.S. as symbolizing the relationship God-Israel. In 2Cor.11,2 the Christian community, in Eph.5:25-32 the Church is married with Christ.

88_{Ambr.Virg.1,10 (Ambrose to Marcellina: de virginitate dicamus...quae principalis est virtus); 2,2,6 (Sit ..}

vobis tamquam in imagine descripta virginitas vita Mariae, e qua velut speculo refulget species castitatis et forma virtitutis); 2,2,15 (haec est imago virginitatis). Species: platonic meaning of the Greek idea: an eternally

existing archetype of any class of thing (cf.Dückers,2009, nt.270); forma: outward appearance (LSJ)(to be filled in with living as a virgin).

89_{Ambr.Virg.1,5,22(Christus virginis sponsus et, si dici potest, Christus virgineae castitatis;); Id. transition of} Ambrose complimenting on not having to bear molestiae nuptiarum (1,6,30) to eulogy on the Church as mother of Christians (Sic sancta ecclesia immaculata coitu, fecunda partu, virgo est castitate, mater est prole) (1,6,31). 90_{Ambr.Virg.1,2,9 (Agnes);1,11,65(specific girl);3,1,1(Marcellina; Christmas as dies natalis tui sponsi);}

1,8,45(<S.o.S.4,12 hortus conclusus...fons signatus);1,8,46(union virgin-Christ <S.o.S. 2,3;3,4;4,16;5,10;7,12; 8,6);2,6,40-43(virgin as Christ’s bride <S.o.S.1,2;1,3(twice);4,8; 5,5;7,12;8,9).

91

Jer.Ep.22,22 advises reading Ambr.Virg. about virginity, next to Tertullian and Cyprian. Also in the

behavioural advices to virgins, the annunciation and the heavenly reception of the virgin, Ambrose’s influence is clear. Unacknowledged influence of Chrysostom and Basil of Ancyra: Jer.Ep.22,20<Chrys.Virg.41,5-6;

Jer.Ep.22,21<Chrys.Virg.14,4;19,1; Jer.Ep.22,38<Chrys.Virg.1-8; Adkin,2003:173-177,375. Shaw,1998:249 (sexual relationship with Christ).

92

Ep.22,6 (sexual humiliation <prostitution texts Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). Ep.22,25 Semper te cubiculi tui

secreta custodiant, semper tecum sponsus ludat intrinsecus. Oras: loqueris ad sponsum; legis: ille tibi loquitur et, cum te somnus oppressit, veniet post parietem et mittet manum suam per foramen et tanget ventrem tuum

(S.o.S.5,4), et tremefacta consurges et dices: ‘Vulnerata caritatis ego sum’ (S.o.S.2,5;5,8) et rursus ab eo

(22)

21

jealousy: other men looking at her changes her into a whore. She is ejected from his

bedroom.93 So, if the virgin stays indoors94, the reward for her present ascetic suffering will be secured: Eustochium’s pompa (triumphal procession) into heavenly Jerusalem. The book ends with a beautiful dialogue between bride and groom in S.o.S. terms95.

Ambrose and Jerome, each in his own way, directly incorporated Origen’s exegesis of S.o.S., but also via Athanasius especially Ambrose and via Gregory of Nazianze Jerome was influenced by Origen’s vision of S.o.S..

Conclusion

Within the continuum of extreme ascetic texts as Lk.14,25-27, the ambiguous text of 1Cor.7 and the pro-marriage texts of the Pastorals, the Church Fathers exploited 1 Cor.7 most to justify their virginity ideal. To harmonize their ascetic interpretation of 1 Cor.7 with the Pastorals a variety of exegetical techniques were used or direct confrontation of contradictions was avoided. The Pastorals advocate an unequal husband-wife relationship within marriage from Eve’s being created after Adam and her having caused the Fall. Women can be saved by giving birth. Paul’s sexual equality within marriage (1Cor.7) and Jesus’ ban on divorce were interpreted as pro-virginity arguments. The reason for marriage, always a second best existence after virginity, as avoidance of sexual temptation our virginity writers borrowed from 1Cor.7. In the fourth century, the angelic virginal life in the hereafter promised by Gospel texts was felt to be realized in virginal life on earth as a foretaste of heaven. Another important metaphor is the nuptial relationship between Christ and his bride, i.e. the virgin or the Church.

Already 1Cor.7 and the Pastorals resist strong ascetic tendencies in the community.

virgin leaves her father’s house to be bound in the embraces of her spouse in the royal bedroom: ..et carne

contempta sponsi iungaris amplexibus ..inducet te rex in cubiculum suum.

93

Ep.22,25. Virgin’s longing and searching for groom: S.o.S.3,2-3;5,6-7;5,2;1,2;6,7; virgin’s exclusion: Matt.22,10 (foolish virgins);25,33(last judgment). Ep.22,25 Zelotypus est Iesus .... indignabitur, tumebit. Cf.22,24 Deus enim zelotes est(Ex.34,14) ...sponsus consurgit iratus. God being Jesus here, his anger caused not by other young men, but by worldly cares of his virgin.

94

Ep.22,26 Foris vagentur virgines stultae, tu intrinsecus esto cum sponso, quia, si ostium clauseris et secundum

evangelii praeceptum in occulto oraveris patrem tuum, veniet et pulsabit... The ensuing dialogue between the

virgin and the groom is held in terms of S.o.S.5,2-6.

95_{Ep.22,41During heavenly reception comment of spouse: S.o.s.2,10-11;angels:S.o.S.6,8-10, ending the letter} with:quotiensque te vana saeculi delectarit ambitio, quotiens in mundo aliquid videris gloriosum, ad paradisum

mente transgredere; esse incipe quod future es, et audies ab sponso tuo: ‘pone me sicut signaculum in corde tuo, sicut signaculum in brachio tuo’, et opere partier ac mente munita clamabis: ‘aqua multa non poterit extinguere caritatem et flumina non cooperient eam’, with the dialogue bride-groom:S.o.s.8,6-7. His emotional involvement

(23)

22

2. Christian thinking about virginity in the second and third century

One of the aspects in which Christianity differed from paganism is that from its earliest beginning Christians ‘argued over theology and accused each other of deviant belief, ‘heresy’’96

. When we reconstruct the development of ideas relevant to virginity, undercurrents became dominant accepted lines and the orthodoxy of century old Church Fathers often was reconsidered. Origen’s influence on all our virginity writers is enormous. Yet at the end of the fourth century he was put in a bad light. The Acta Pauli et Theclae and the before mentioned

Protoevangelium Iacobi (both part of the NT apocrypha) were popular with the masses, but

the extremity of their ascetic message made them suspect in the eyes of learned patristic writers. The same can be said to a lesser degree of Tertullian. Some of our fourth century writers reassessed their hitherto hidden significance postulating virginity as the superb norm. Clement of Alexandria was the last Church Father propagandizing marriage, whereas Cyprian of Carthage wrote the first virginity treatise.

2.1. Actae Pauli et Theclae (second century)

The Actae Pauli et Theclae 97, written down from oral traditions, belonged to a new genre of Encratite98 literature. The goal of the romantic Hellenistic novel, to stimulate marriage and propagation for the benefit of the city, was inverted: not eros, but continence became the main value preached. The good characters are the wife (to be), who rejects her (future) husband influenced by the preaching of abstinence by an itinerant, charismatic apostle. The husband as bad guy advocates the traditional value of marriage. The abstinence ideology is told as an anti-establishment protest.

These Acts were popular with our virginity writers. Though Tertullian already had warned about the fictive character of this story, Gregory of Nyssa wrote how Thecla appeared to his mother, when she was pregnant with his oldest sister Macrina. Thecla became

Macrina’s secret name and her ideal. Gregory of Nazianze stayed at her shrine for some time after the death of his parents. Ambrose advised his virgins to take her as a role model.

Melania the Elder was once called ‘the new Thecla’ by Jerome. Augustine warned the African women to choose a married African female martyr saint as ideal instead of Thecla.99

96_{Wickham, 2010:59}

97_{My analysis is based on Cooper,1996:24-64, but also Brown,2008:155-159;328,329;} Liebeschuetz,2011:67,70,71 show the importance of these Acts in the fourth century.

98_{Encratite (<en krateia, continence) practices of abstinence of sexuality, eating meat and drinking wine, were} popular from the second century onward. Brown,2008:92,93. Under 2.b. more about Encratite thinking. 99

(24)

23 2.2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

Married Clement of Alexandria is unique in his defence of marriage. He defended marriage against the Encratite influence of Tatian. The core of Encratite thinking relevant for our fourth century, is the following reasoning. As punishment for Adam and Eve’s Fall in paradise mankind became mortal. Man’s mortality needed sexuality, enabling procreation, as a means to continue as a kind. Abstinence, prescribed by the New Testament, would lead to a return to the pre-lapsarian state of paradise. Against Tatian’s Encratism100, Clement provided the following theological arguments. If God and His creation are good, then marriage and sexuality must be good. Jesus’ rejection of divorce using Genesis citations indicated both his support for marriage and the continuing validity of the Old Testament’s propagation

commandment (Gen.1:28). Against Tatian’s interpretation of Cor.7:5 that every sexual activity within or outside marriage is basically fornication, Clement posed the literal meaning that with mutual agreement spouses can temporarily abstain from sexuality for prayer and Paul’s warning that extreme abstinence would cause fornication. ‘Paul’’s positive attitude towards marriage was clear from his use of the marriage metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ and the church in Eph.5:31,32, citing Gen.2:24. The pro-marriage Pastorals, were amply used as an argument against Encratism. Writing against the Encratite linking of sexuality, human birth and original sin Clement reasoned as follows: ‘If birth is something evil, let the blasphemers say that the Lord who shared in birth was born in evil, and that the virgin gave birth to him in evil.’101

The alternative, Encratite reasoning would have resulted in Docetism: as birth was a consequence of the transmission of original sin via intercourse, Christ only seemed to be born human (putativus homo) and to have had a physical body.102 Further, Clement argued against the transmission of the original sin in sexuality (<Ps.51:5), which would play a fundamental role in Augustine’s theological system.103

This theological exposé shows how the topics raised in the intellectual discourse on virginity in the fourth century go back a long way and how Clement gives an exceptional refutation of them. He

100_{Tatian, his predecessor Marcion and contemporary Valentinus, were heretical thinkers from the outskirts of} the Roman empire (Assyria, Pontus and Egypt), who successfully brought their doctrine to Rome and spread it from there around the Roman empire. So virginity must be an early known ideal in Rome. Only in the fourth century their followers became incorporated in the centralizing church. Tatian became influential in Syrian asceticism. (Hunter, 2007:105,114).

101_{Clem.Strom.3.17.102}

102_{Another way out would have been Irenaeus’ view: Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus did not end her virginity, so} Jesus could be fully human, yet untainted by sin. By this unique birth Eve’s sin was turned back and humankind saved (Iren.Haer.3.22). The apocryphal Protoevangelium Iacobi (AD 145) was a forerunner in the idea of this

virginitas in partu, important for Zeno of Verona (bs.362-380) and Ambrose. While Tertullian accepted Mary’s

virginity after the conception, he rejected the maintenance of Mary’s virginity in giving birth, as this would deny Jesus’ human nature. (Hunter,2007:170-206).

(25)

24

goes further than Jovinian, who advocated an equal status for celibates and married based on baptism and so blew up the fourth century virginity debate.

Not only does Clement judge marriage and procreation favourably as cooperation with God’s creation, the highest reward is for the married man who overcomes with reason and without passions the tribulations of active daily life with marriage, family, possession.104 Like the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, Clement considered marriage a necessary institution for the continuation of the city and the world.105 Also influenced by Stoicism was that active life with social responsibilities towards one’s household and city contributed to personal growth into wisdom at old age. Clement’s Paedagogus helped to regulate a Christian existence within the household, emphasizing the cultivation of apatheia, the Stoic virtue of equanimity under all circumstances of life. Paedagogus and Stromata Book III were aimed at young married or about to be married women and men, the groups most vulnerable to

Encratite influence. Intercourse had to be conducted as a conscious act to serve God. Sexual pleasure in differing positions, etc. was condemned as ‘vulgar and plebeian’106

. Like

Musonius Rufus, Clement thought the only occasion for intercourse was within marriage for the purpose of procreation. Both considered marriage as a chaste and harmonious

relationship.107 Emphasizing procreation, mutual trust and affection resulting from intercourse disappeared as pro-marriage argument.108 Brown judges Clement’s to be the last ‘orthodox’ victory over Encratism. Though the ‘silent majority’ of the Christians continued to live in households, to marry and to raise children, the superior form of living as formulated by higher clergy and transmitted in texts in the third and fourth century is virginity.109

2.3. Tertullian (160-220)

Tertullian, a converted rhetor from North-Africa, was married. He formulated his ideas during his life in debate with movements, that later could be considered heretical undercurrents: Marcionites and Montanists. Against the Marcionites, who rejected the OT and its creator- God, accepting the Letters of Paul and part of the synoptic Gospels and who advocated continence, Tertullian argued that in the symbolically interpreted marriage bond of Eph.5:31 Paul refers to and so approves of the marriage of Gen.2:24. Initially his audience was a public

104_{Clem.Strom.3.9.66; Paed.2.10.83 (procreation), Strom.7.12.70 (highest reward for married) Yet, Clement} usually regarded both virginity and marriage as different forms of service (leitourgia, diakonia) to God. (Hunter, 2007:112).

105

Clem.Strom.2.23.141. 106_{Clem.Paed.2.10.93.1:1.}

107_{Clem.Paed.2.10.94; Strom.2.23.141 <Hunter,2007:106.} 108

Late fourth century virginity: