JUDITH HARTENSTEIN
ONLY in a very few apocryphal gospels is sexual abstinence expressly a topic which is discussed; asceticism in terms of food etc. plays an even smaller role. It is, however, still widely agreed in scholarly circles that many of these writings call for abstinence from sexual relations or at least have an ascetic background. This is thought to be the case especially in relation to the ‘gnostic’ gospels from the Nag Hammadi library or related codices, because small clues and their theology as a whole—in particular, a negative view of the world—suggest ascetic tendencies. A special, but not undisputed, role is played by the Gospel of Thomas. Given the debate over the term ‘gnostic’ and the growing awareness of the differences between the writings referred to as ‘gnostic’, it is at least worth taking a closer look at the individual texts. But it is also generally difficult to connect conclusions drawn from the gospels, with their often abstract and theological content, with the experiences and lives of their readers. In my opinion, some of the statements can be understood in different ways depending on the context, and also depending on the gender of the reader. It is noticeable that in many gospels which are regarded as ascetic, women disciples of Jesus play a strong role.
In Late Antiquity, temperance, independence from external influences, and mastery of one’s inner passions were viewed by different philosophical schools as virtues; the critical values were spiritual. Asceticism as an exercise in the mastery of physical and emotional desires therefore belongs to the philosophical life, but does not necessarily mean complete sexual abstinence. Sexuality in marriage for (male) philosophers can be an act of will with the purpose of procreation and the fulfilment of social obligations, and is explicitly not determined by passion (Francis 1995: 14–19; Clement Strom. 3.58). Asceticism in a radical form, however, has a sociocritical potential, because it gives the ascetic personal authority (Francis 1995: 182–3).
Asceticism presupposes a hierarchy between spiritual and material aspects of life. The assessment of materiality, the body and the world, may however be different: based on Plato, both a fundamental rejection of the body or of the connection of the soul with it, as well as a more positive view in which the body is made worthy of the soul by training, are represented (Dillon 1995: 80). Both can look very similar when implemented in practice. The relationship between philosophical theory and ascetic practice is therefore complex, and the background for particular practices may be different in each case. Conversely, a particular view of the world does not necessarily have the same consequences—or at least different levels of abstinence are possible.
The hierarchy of spiritual and material corresponds to the relationship male–female; the whole sphere of the material, of sexuality and desires, can be described in metaphorical language as ‘feminine’ (Wisse 1988: 300). Turning to the spiritual can be described in figurative language as a turning away from the feminine. For men, this means controlling their own ‘feminine’ impulses along with contact with real women. Women are closer to the material as a gender, keeping away from the female-material realm is thus more difficult for them, but is also possible. However, the social implications are more serious because women are more strongly defined by their role in the family (Wire 1988: 309). The position of women is explicitly reflected in several apocryphal gospels, which suggests that women were significantly involved here.
For this essay, the task is to examine the individual explicit and implicit statements that indicate ascetic intentions and/or ascetic practice by the readers. I will also analyse the role of women—female disciples—in each text and then search for the theological background for both. This, in my opinion, shows that in some writings, certain theological ideas correlate with a strong participation of women and a certain kind of statement that is susceptible to an ascetic interpretation. Theology is the focus; ascetic practice and an equal role for women seem to be derived from it. Calls for asceticism are not a separate issue in these writings, because they are not the way to a specific goal, but rather the consequence of particular ideas.
Many apocryphal gospels contain nothing about asceticism. This is especially the case for many writings that have survived only in fragments, such as the Gospel of Peter or the Jewish–Christian gospels, but it is possible that relevant points have simply not been preserved. Gospels from Nag Hammadi and its environment are more productive; here an ascetic background is often assumed—for example in Gos. Thom., Gos. Phil., Gos. Mary, Ap. John., Dial. Sav.—though sometimes due to minimal references. But some writings in this context show no indication of asceticism at all, such as Gos. Judas or Ap. Jas.; in 1 Apoc. Jas., the transmission of the revelation is even explicitly ensured with the help of a Levi and his biological sons (NHC V 37,7–14).
The only writing in the field of apocryphal gospels in which sexual asceticism is expressly the central theme is Thom. Cont. The Gos. Eg. (in Clement) deals more with reproduction than with asceticism in the strict sense, but Clement’s presentation gives an encratite interpretation. I will therefore start with these writings, although they are clearly younger than, e.g., the Gos. Thom.
THE BOOK OF THOMAS (THOM. CONT. NHC II,7)
The Thom. Cont. clearly advocates (sexual) asceticism. The main theme of the parenetic dialogue between Jesus and Thomas is the call to control one’s own desire and inner fire so as to find salvation. ‘Fire’ is a central concept of the writing, specifically in the double meaning as an inner burning (desire) and as hellfire that threatens those who do not keep their desires in check (Schenke 2001: 284). The tension between the different options that are placed before Thomas and the reader is also described as an alternative between an animal-material and a spiritual-heavenly side: the individual person can decide whether he/she wants to sink to the level of the animals, with which he/she shares the physicality, or ascend toward heaven.
A broad consensus sees this writing as a call to complete sexual abstinence (Layton and Turner 1989: 176–7; Schenke 2001: 284). However, the writing primarily deals with the control of desire. Moreover, only in a very few places is sexuality really expressly mentioned; perhaps both the reference to desire and the image of fire have a much broader scope than sexuality alone. The general topic is the pursuit of invisible, eternal things and a turning away from what is visible. Physicality is a central example; the body is not only the product of sexuality such as with animals, but is also subject to change and transience (138,39–139,12). The reader should turn away from this animal nature and turn to the light; in my opinion, this is the basic challenge of the writing (139,25–31). This is explained in more detail immediately afterwards:
O unsearchable love of the light! O bitterness of the fire that blazes in the bodies of men and in their marrow, kindling in them night and day, and burning the limbs of men and [making] their minds become drunk and their souls become deranged […] them within males and females … […] night and moving them, […] … secretly and visibly. For the males [move … upon the females] and the females upon [the males. Therefore it is] (p.140) said, ‘Everyone who seeks the truth from true wisdom will make himself wings so as to fly, fleeing the lust that scorches the spirits of men.’ And he will make himself wings to flee every visible spirit. (139,32–140,5; Layton and Turner 1989: 185–7)
This is the most comprehensive place that clearly speaks of sexual desire. The ‘fire’ which draws men and women to each other and confuses mind (
) and soul is considered here as dangerous; at the end, lust is mentioned (
140,3). The concluding statement widens the perspective and seems to involve the abandonment of all that is visible. Also, in the following, there is a warning against turning to the visible, which is transient and thus contrary to the real truth. This can be understood as physical attractiveness in the sexual sense, but in my opinion is more comprehensive; it has to do with the alternative between true heavenly values and the entanglement in earthly-material things. Perhaps sexuality is simply the most significant example of the wrong orientation. The physical is clearly devalued, but motifs such as keeping the body pure or forgoing children, which exclude sexuality and often appear in the apocryphal acts of the apostles (cf. Tissot, in this volume), are missing. I believe that the challenges of the text can be read as not implying complete abstinence when marital sexuality is not determined by desire.
It is striking that women and men are addressed as sexually active; both can be attracted to the other gender. From the genre of the text as a wisdom teaching and from the situation of Jesus teaching Thomas as depicted in this writing, however, it seems that it is men who are primarily in focus and being addressed. This becomes clear in another reference, the second one which is explicitly sexual in nature:
Woe to you (pl.), who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them! (144,8–10; Layton and Turner 1989: 201)
In a series of woes, there are warnings against those who put their hopes on the ephemeral flesh, who are controlled by the internal fire, who dwell in darkness and error—again, most woes are certainly to be understood more comprehensively than just in relation to sexual matters. Intimacy with womankind here expresses one of the dangerous entanglements, and this togetherness is regarded as basically dirty. However, the reader is not warned not to have this contact, but rather not to love it, although that is perhaps quibbling. To me, the question seems to be whether the woe really only refers to specific sexual acts. Similar to the ‘sin of fornication’ in Gos. Mary, intimacy with womankind in Thom Cont. could also mean a general connection to the material world for which sexuality is just an image. The concern of the text remains, in any case, orientation towards the heavenly immortal realm.
Overall, we can say that Thom. Cont. warns of sexual desire as extremely harmful to human salvation. But in my opinion it is not such a clear plea for total abstinence as is usually assumed. It is quite possible that it advocates control of desire more than a complete abandonment of sexuality. Above all, however, the sexual language—which is explicit only in a few places—can well be understood in a figurative sense. The alternative posed by the text is certainly not sex or no sex, but sinking down and involvement in the earthly-material world or ascent to the heavenly light. Sexuality is contrasted with spiritual values; control of this area is therefore a necessary step for spiritual existence.
THE GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS
The Gos. Eg. is preserved by Clement of Alexandria who quotes some passages, including a dialogue between Jesus and Salome about an end to the ‘works of the female’, namely birth and death. Although these passages do not contain explicit calls for asceticism, the gospel was already read in such a manner in the second century CE. Clement cites not only the sayings, but also deals with a specific interpretation by an encratite group; it is often not clear what comes from the Gos. Eg., what comes from this interpretation, and what is from Clement himself (Markschies 2012: 667–8). Clement does not share the ascetic interpretation, but offers his own view of the sayings:
Those who are opposed to God’s creation, disparaging it under the fair name of continence, also quote the words to Salome which we mentioned earlier. They are found, I believe, in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. They say that the Saviour himself said ‘I came to destroy the works of the female’, meaning by ‘female’ desire, and by ‘works’ birth and corruption. What then would they say? Has this destruction in fact been accomplished? They could not say so, for the world continues exactly as before. Yet the Lord did not lie. For in truth he did destroy the works of desire, love of money, contentiousness, vanity, mad lust for women, paederasty, gluttony, licentiousness, and similar vices. Their birth is the soul’s corruption, since then we are ‘dead in sins’. And this is the incontinence referred to as ‘female’. (Clement Strom. 3.63.1–3; Oulton and Chadwick 1954: 69)
The Gos. Eg. seems, like Thom. Cont., to seek an exit from the sequence of coming into being (birth) and decay (death), but sees this as a work of Jesus, not initially as a call to the individual. The encratite interpretation, which Clement deals with, possibly considers this state as having already been reached. This is what Clement questions. An ascetic way of life is then the consequence of the destruction of the works of the female already carried out. But Clement does not only deny that such a change has already occurred, he also offers a broader interpretation of the ‘works of the female’: not only sexuality and birth are meant, but all kinds of material desires and sins that kill the soul. Clement shows that it is indeed possible (as was already the case in antiquity) to understand references to the feminine, not only in the narrow sexual sense, but also in a comprehensively figurative way. As a consequence, the one interpretation leads to radical abstinence, the other just rejects excesses without excluding a normal married life. Elsewhere in Clement (Exc. Theod. 67.2–4), a further non-ascetic interpretation of the saying about the works of the female is offered: for the Valentinians, this is a reference to the heavenly Sophia, while on earth births are necessary to enable the salvation of believers.
Overall, I think it is likely that the Gos. Eg. primarily relates to sexuality and birth; at least this seems to be the basic interpretation from which Clement and the Valentinians distance themselves. But the language is not clear enough that all readers must come to this conclusion.
In a further passage, the new status is described in more detail:
On this account he [Cassianus] says: ‘When Salome asked when she would know the answer to her questions, the Lord said, When you trample on the robe of shame, and when the two shall be one, and the male with the female, and there is neither male nor female.’ (Strom. 3.92.2; Oulton and Chadwick 1954: 83)
Presumably, this section also belongs to the conversation about the works of the female (Markschies 2012: 673). It is used by Cassianus to support an attitude of abstinence. The alternative to becoming and passing away is a comprehensive unity in which the difference between feminine and masculine is dissolved. In such a context, sexuality is simply not necessary or even impossible. The point is not, as in Thom. Cont., a control of desires (Clement’s alternative interpretation of this passage points in this direction), but a fundamentally altered state of human beings. In Gos. Eg., this is an announcement for the future, but it is quite conceivable that the Encratites considered this prophecy as having been fulfilled, and therefore led an abstinent life.
In the fragments of the Gos. Eg., Salome is the conversation partner of Jesus; she seems to be a disciple. This is no coincidence, but related to the content of the conversation, as parallel statements in Dial. Sav. show, which are also associated with a female disciple. The prospect of overcoming the ‘works of the female’ and the dissolution of gender difference bring about the presence of women (Petersen 1999: 307–8), while controlling one’s own desires seems to be a more masculine question.
Thom. Cont. and Gos. Eg. can both lead to ascetic practice among readers. The argumentation, however, is very different: while human beings according to Thom. Cont. need to decide between their spiritual and material aspects and thereby control sexual desire, Gos. Eg. seems to assume a fundamentally altered state of the human, which includes a dissolution of gender difference. Asceticism is thus on the one hand the way to a goal, and on the other hand the consequence of theological ideas. In both texts, however, the sexual language can be interpreted metaphorically, so that it does not necessarily lead to radical asceticism. The roles of women are different. These points have to be kept in mind when it comes to texts in which asceticism is only a very marginal subject.
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS (NHC II,2)
The Gos. Thom., presumably the oldest of the writings dealt with here (dating from perhaps around 100 CE), is often considered an ascetic gospel, one that promotes complete sexual abstinence. This view, however, has also been questioned (Uro 1998). Read against the background of Thom. Cont., it is the case that sexuality / desire / inner fire are not explicitly dealt with in the Gos. Thom. At the same time, the Gos. Thom. exercised influence in circles for which sexual asceticism was of great interest (this also includes the Acts of Thomas). The modelling of Thom. Cont. on the form of Gos. Thom. speaks for a high regard of the text. The Gos. Thom. is similar to the Gos. Eg. in form (sayings and short dialogues), and in terms of content there are parallels as well: the unity and dissolution of gender differences occur in Gos. Thom. 22 (and for trampling on the garment of shame, see 37). Destroying the works of the female is not in mind, but rather that Mary is called to become male (114).
Although sexuality in itself is not an issue in Gos. Thom., there are some thematic complexes that belong in this area. Thus, Gos. Thom. is clearly hostile to families and thereby somewhat harsher than the Synoptic parallels (55, 99, 101). Jesus’ own family and the disciples’ parents and siblings are mentioned, but spouses (as in Luke 14.26) and children (Luke 14.26 par. Matt. 10.37; also Mark 10.29 par.) are not. The statements seem to imply a break with social norms, rather than to lay down a specific, unmarried life—or they already presuppose a life without marriage and children. Presumably the use of monachos should be considered in this context (16, 49, 75): From the fourth century on, the term refers to a clearly defined ascetic way of life, but this use cannot be assumed for the significantly earlier Gos. Thom. (Uro 1998: 156–9). The term is in Gos. Thom. 16, the most extensive context, in connection with the splitting of families, and it probably reflects the awareness of election and the minority position of the Gos. Thom. A certain—though not absolute—negative attitude to reproduction becomes clear in the beatitude of the women who do not give birth (79).
The issue of fasting is specifically treated in Gos. Thom. The term appears in the literal sense, as (religiously motivated) abstention from food, but this is rejected (6 and 14, more cautiously 104). But to ‘fast as regards the world’ (27) is required, which probably means a renunciation of involvement in earthly matters in favour of a heavenly orientation. Here, as in several other places, a devaluation of the material world (56, 80) and also the body (29, 87, 112) is clear. Risto Uro has shown, however, that world and body in Gos. Thom. are not only seen as negative, even if spiritual values are clearly more important. Rather, the position of the Gos. Thom. is quite comparable with pagan philosophy; it does not necessarily have to result in abstinence (Uro 2003: 54–79).
In some places in Gos. Thom., children are presented to the disciples as an ideal (4, 21, 22, 37). The most detailed reference is in Gos. Thom. 22, where Jesus gives an assurance that ‘infants being suckled’ will enter into the kingdom. In the following explanation, he calls for a comprehensive combination of opposites:
When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and you fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then you will enter [the kingdom]. (22; Layton and Lambdin 1989: 63)
The exact interpretation is disputed. Often the main point is understood to be the dissolution of any difference between the genders, which means a return to an original state of creation, and is illustrated by the still undifferentiated small children (Patterson 2008: 195; Heininger 2010b: 389). The image of breastfeeding, however, may express attachment and closeness to God in which the gender issue is only one aspect (Standhartinger 2007: 886). In any case, the goal of unity and closeness to God is somehow linked to creation (Pagels 1999: 481), and certainly leaves no room for gender differences. Presumably readers of Gos. Thom. have already seen themselves at least partially in this state. When this unity is regained, then sexual attraction is automatically eliminated without it having to be specifically addressed (Zimmermann 2001: 569).
Such a view has consequences for women in a special way, and this is explicitly addressed in Gos. Thom. 114:
Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’ (114; Layton and Lambdin 1989: 93)
Although the language is more androcentric than in 22, I believe the same goal of asexual spiritual existence is described, which can be called male in the ancient hierarchy of female and male (Petersen 1999: 315; against Heininger 2010b: 361). Mary (Magdalene’s) affiliation to the group and thus the strong, equal role of women in Gos. Thom. (of five named disciples, three are men and two are women), is confirmed by Jesus here in a prominent position at the end of the text, with an extension to all women who make themselves male. Although no conclusions can be drawn about a specific life practice, I think it is very unlikely that women could invoke such a status and at the same time lead a normal married life. The male-spiritual existence probably completely offsets the female-material components. This also matches the beatitude in 79.
In my opinion, the findings show that the spiritual world of Gos. Thom. has no room for sexuality; it simply does not deal with it. Questions of asceticism are certainly not a concern of Gos. Thom. Asceticism is not a demand which serves a specific theological purpose, nor is it required to attain a spiritual orientation. Rather, it is the other way around: from the theology that is represented, a certain behaviour may follow or at least suggests itself. The basic concept is very similar to Gos. Eg.; it is about a change in human beings which is determined by unity, dissolution of gender difference, and closeness to God (maybe a return to the original creation). This idea has, then, potential ascetic consequences (which can be seen in the reception history of Gos. Thom.) and is associated with a strong female role.
THE SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST (NHC III,4; BG 3)
In Soph. Jes. Chr., Jesus teaches his disciples in particular about heavenly circumstances; their concrete earthly life is thus hardly in mind, even if some prompts in this regard are included. Eating and drinking is not an issue, but sexuality is mentioned twice in a rather deprecating way as a means of reproduction. The first time is at the very beginning of the text after the appearance, when Jesus explains the purpose of his coming teachings:
But to you it is given to know; and whoever is worthy of knowledge will receive (it), whoever has not been begotten by the sowing of unclean rubbing (
) but by First Who Was Sent, for he is an immortal in the midst of mortal men. (NHC III 93,16–24; Parrott 1991: 49)
The text distinguishes between people who originated in the normal biological way and those who have their origin in God—similar to John 1.12–13, where an earthly conception and birth is set in antithesis to procreation by God. But Soph. Jes. Chr. speaks in a significantly more derogatory manner about the procreation process; sexual activity is clearly seen as negative. But it is also obvious that the formulation cannot be taken literally, because the persons being addressed originated themselves by sexual means. Here, a true existence originating from God is contrasted with normal earthly existence without explaining the practical consequences of this contrast.
Later on, Jesus responds to his role and its effect in a longer text insertion as compared with Eugnostos:
And you were sent by the Son, who was sent that you might receive Light and remove yourselves from the forgetfulness of the authorities and that it might not again come to appearance because of you, namely, the unclean rubbing () that is from the fearful fire that came from their fleshly part. Tread upon their malicious intent (
). (NHC III 108,4–16; Parrott 1991: 135–7)
Again, we find the same derogatory formulations regarding sexuality, this time including a kind of guide to action: Jesus’ task is, on the one hand, to enlighten his listeners, thereby setting aside the oblivion that the archons placed on the people at the time of creation, so that they no longer remember their heavenly origin. On the other hand, he wants them to abstain from sexual reproduction, which is characteristic of the creation of the archons and keeps it going. This brief mention can be understood as an invitation to the ascetic life. However, it is also possible to interpret this passage, like the first one, in a more figurative sense. If so, it deals with living according to their origin in God, whatever that looks like. But if this specifically means the renunciation of sexuality, and I think this is more likely, the ascetic lifestyle seems to be so self-evident that a detailed explanation is not necessary. In any case, there is no other call for asceticism, not even in the last part of the teachings of Jesus, which summarize the effect of the teaching and contain challenges and a kind of mission.
However, in the context of these final challenges, one encounters a reference to an original state of creation which is to be reached. As in Gos. Thom. and other writings, in Soph. Jes. Chr. it is connected to overcoming duality:
Because of this, then, I came here, that they might be joined with that Spirit and Breath, and might from two become a single one, just as from the first, that you might yield much fruit and go up to Him Who Is from the Beginning, with ineffable joy and glory and honor and grace of the Father of the Universe. (BG 122,5–123,1; Parrott 1991: 173–4)
Similar to Gos. Thom. and Gos. Eg., Soph. Jes. Chr. depicts a theology in which salvation is thought of as a return to an original spiritual state of creation that might include the dissolution of gender difference. And in this text as well, the equal participation of women is noticeable. The revelations of Jesus are addressed to twelve male and seven female disciples (of these, four men and one woman involved in the conversation are specifically named); this double group seems more institutionalized than coincidental and is not problematized—there are hardly any other early Christian writings in which nearly equal participation of women and men seems so normal. This text also points to a rejection of sexuality, even if it is unclear as to how concretely and literally it is to be understood.
The text, however, does not focus at all on practical behaviour, and only sparsely on anthropology; it focuses primarily on the heavenly conditions before the fall. In other words, it is a description of the supreme God and his emanations. The fall of Sophia, which leads to the creation of human beings and our material world, is mentioned briefly only at the end. Soph. Jes. Chr. presupposes this gnostic myth, but does not elaborate it in detail. In these heavenly worlds, the supreme God is beyond any gender polarity (but of course described in male terminology); only the emanations are androgynous, each with a male and a female side that corresponds with each other. In my opinion, it reflects a view that gender differentiation is a secondary development, which is lacking in the highest deity.
THE APOCRYPHON OF JOHN (NHC II,1; III,1; IV,1; BG 2)
The Ap. John provides a clearer view of sexuality. In the context of the detailed gnostic creation myth, sexual desire is an attempt by Yaldabaoth to bind the people to the material world. Desire is part of the physical creation, through which the archons want to separate Adam from his heavenly origin (BG 55), because he had shown himself superior to them through the spirit breathed into him. Yaldabaoth is also seen as the ruler of (or in) sexual desire (BG 51); his rape of Eve is the origin of conjugal sexuality (BG 62–3). Sexuality in these passages belongs, therefore, to the material world and leads to entanglement in it; it contrasts the reflection of one’s own heavenly origin and the return to it.
On the other hand, the creation of woman and the differentiation of the sexes is positive (Williams 1996: 156). Adam’s ability to recognize his own nature in Eve is attributed to the interaction of the heavenly Epinoia:
Then the Reflection of the light hid herself in him (Adam). And in his desire, he (the Chief Ruler) wanted to bring her out of the rib. But she, the Reflection of the light, since she is something that cannot be grasped, although the darkness pursed her, it was not able to catch her. He wanted to bring the power out of him in order to make a form once again, in the shape of a woman. And he raised <her> up before him, not as Moses said, ‘He took a rib and created the woman beside him.’ Immediately (Adam) became sober from the drunkenness of darkness. The Reflection of the light lifted the veil which lay over his mind. Immediately, when he recognized his essence, he said, ‘This is indeed bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.’ Therefore the man will leave his father and his mother und he will cleave to his wife and they will both become one flesh. For the Mother’s consort will be sent forth and she will be rectified. Therefore Adam gave her the name ‘the Mother of all the living’. (BG 59,6–60,16; Waldstein and Wisse 1995: 130–4)
Here, the connection between the two, including sexuality (cf. Gen. 2.23–4), appears to be more of a step to salvation. This is explicitly visible in the begetting of Seth, who has heavenly qualities, even though sexual desire is implanted in Adam by the archon (BG 63). So possibly only desire is negative, not necessarily each type of sexuality, and procreation might have positive effects.
A possible reference to the concrete effects on the lives of readers is then provided by a description of the saved souls who have no desire, but avail themselves of the flesh:
Those on whom the Spirit of life is about to come, after they have joined with the power they will be saved, they will be perfect and they will be worthy to enter these great lights. For they will be worthy to be purified there from all wickedness and the attractions of evil since they do not devote themselves to anything except this incorruptible assembly and will surely direct their attention to it without anger, or envy, or fear, or desire, or gratification. By all of these they are not affected, nor by any one among them, except only (by) the flesh, while they use it, looking expectantly for when they will be brought forth and received by the receivers into the dignity of eternal imperishable life and the calling, enduring everything and bearing everything, that they may finish the contest and inherit eternal life. (BG 65,3–66,13; Waldstein and Wisse 1995: 146–8)
The text of BG (shorter version) speaks about using(
) the flesh. This can at least be interpreted as a facilitation of normal family life. The flesh, even though the goal is to leave it behind, can be used. However, the longer version speaks about bearing the flesh (
, Ap. John NHC II, 25,35) thereby describing only the state of physical existence in and of itself, without indicating what to do with it.
Women do not have a special role in Ap. John; there is no indication of equal participation, but also none against it. Even though I perhaps put too much weight on the differences, it seems to me that Ap. John represents—in spite of the gnostic myth which is to some extent the same—a different concept of asceticism, of gender roles, and of the presence of the new life than Soph. Jes. Chr.
THE GOSPEL OF MARY (BG 1)
The Gos. Mary is even harder to interpret than other writings, because it is only partially preserved, and also because it takes up traditions from many different areas without elaborating on them. The Gos. Mary also offers a derogatory remark which has to do with the topic of sexuality, namely as an answer to the question of the sin of the world:
… What is the sin of the world?’ The Saviour said: ‘There is no sin, but it is you who perform sin when you do what is like the nature of adultery (
) which is called sin. Because of this, the Good came among you to the (things?) of every nature, in order to restore it to its root.’ Then he continued and said; ‘That is why you are si[c]k and die, for … (p. 8) of the one who [… he who under]stands, let him understand. Matter [gave birth to] a passion (
) which has no image, which proceeded from (something) contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in the whole body. That is why I said to you, be obedient and if you are not obedient still be obedient in the presence of the different forms of nature. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’ (7,12–8,11; Tuckett 2007: 87–9)
Adultery is seen here as identical with sin and serves as an illustration for the basic error of human existence. The reference to sexuality is explicitly used as an image. With ‘sin’, the blending of the spiritual/heavenly with material things is probably meant (King 2003: 50; Tuckett 2007: 142–3). Illegitimate sexuality thus seems to stand for an unauthorized connection, or maybe more directly the primacy of physical desires over other values. Physical disturbance caused by passion is seen negatively in any case in the following lines. But since adultery in the biblical context is also a common metaphor for idolatry/the turning to other gods, it might include the aspect of turning away from the true God, and that means from one’s own origin. The figurative language does not contain an indication of the way of life of those addressed; moreover, the reference to adultery leaves open the possibility of legitimate sexuality. It is just clear that passion—and the following physical disturbance—is rejected.
In Gos. Mary, the aim is to return to an original state; the dissolution of all things to their origin seems to be a positive promise. Later in the document, this objective is related to individuals; it is about their search for the Son of Man inside themselves (8,18–21), the putting on and bringing forth the perfect human being (18,15–18) or the retrospective view that they were made into human beings by Jesus (9,18–20). In this sentence, the wording of the Greek and the Coptic versions of Gos. Mary differs:
BG 9,19–20: for he has prepared us and made us into human beings. (Tuckett 2007: 91)
P. Oxy. 3525 12: for he has united us and [made us into] human beings. (Tuckett 2007: 109)
It is clear that this state of true humanity is already set, despite the calls for realization. However, it is not described in detail. The Greek version probably uses the word ‘united’ (the word is difficult to read: see Tuckett 2007: 166–7) which might be interpreted as a male–female connection, and thus as a dissolution of gender difference. But this is not even certain for the Greek text, the Coptic text gives no indication of such an interpretation.
In the report on the ascent of the soul in the second half of the Gos. Mary, desire (
) belongs to the forces that must be overcome (15,1, the second power; 16,6–7, part of the fourth power) and is thereby connected with darkness, ignorance, flesh, and wrath. A specific sexual interpretation with austere practice is not evident.
As to whether the Gos. Mary belongs in an ascetic context, the writing simply offers no evidence (Wire 1988: 321). There are no direct or indirect incitements to ascetic life. Conversely, there is also nothing that would contradict such a lifestyle. Small clues fit perfectly with a theology shown in more detail in Gos. Thom. and Gos. Eg. Visible in this text is the current presence of the true human being in the disciples and a practical dissolution of gender difference. Mary is explicitly allowed to teach; her womanhood is not an obstacle for this. But this is justified (unlike Gos. Thom. 114) only by the choice of Jesus, not in a fundamentally anthropological way, and also not explicitly extended to all women. I would suspect that the female readers of Gos. Mary could cite the example of Mary and fill in the blanks of the Gos. Mary so that true humanity also includes a dissolution of gender difference—and then probably for them an ascetic lifestyle as well (Wire 1988: 322). But it is (probably easier for men) also conceivable to combine Gos. Mary with its ascent to the heavenly origin with a normal married life.
THE GOSPEL OF PHILIP (NHC II,3)
The Gos. Phil. differs from the previously examined gospels. Its use of sexual language appears broad and positive, but it refers above all to heavenly, not earthly circumstances. In particular, the bridal chamber is often mentioned, where woman and man unite and thereby overcome their original separation (70,9–22). Presumably this is regarded as a union with a heavenly syzygy. However, the varying language also refers to earthly marriage and generally to sexuality which is compared to the heavenly bridal chamber (81,34–82,10; 65,12–26). The earthly relations are reflections of a heavenly reality and help to understand it.
In scholarly discussions, it is debated whether the bridal chamber in the group behind Gos. Phil. is celebrated as a sacrament (and if so, what it might have looked like) or whether it is an interpretation of the generally accepted sacraments (baptism, Eucharist). The latter is more likely in my opinion (Heininger 2010a: 300), as it agrees with the overall assessment that Gos. Phil. is aimed at a group within a ‘normal’ community, not at a separate and independent form of church (Heimola 2011: 168–9).
The idea of the bridal chamber in Gos. Phil. is related to a theology of creation which is similar to Gos. Thom. or Gos. Eg.; Gos. Thom. 22 is probably used and interpreted in Gos. Phil. (67,30–5). An original separation of Eve from Adam leads to death and is dissolved by the unification made possible by Christ (68,22–6; 70,9–34). The re-establishment of an originally existing (but then lost) state of creation thus seems possible here. The Gos. Phil. shares with Gos. Thom. and other texts the fundamental idea that the true decisive life is heavenly-spiritual, not earthly.
But it is interesting that the return to the original state is not seen as a dissolution of gender difference, through which an asexual, spiritual and (in the gender terminology of antiquity) male humanity is accomplished, but via a union with a heavenly power of the opposite sex (65,1–12). The effect here, too, is the dissolution of sexual attractiveness (65,12–26); nevertheless, more gender polarity remains. This is also reflected in the fact that women do not appear as female disciples in Gos. Phil. as they do in Gos. Thom. Mary Magdalene has a prominent role, but she has it as a companion of Jesus; in other words, specifically as a woman. The differences and the attraction between man and woman are not fundamentally devalued. It is not only a characteristic of the material world, but also of the heavenly reality. The important thing is to connect with the right partner who protects against all other temptations.
But what can be inferred from Gos. Phil. about the concrete life of the readers? Are they called to an ascetic lifestyle—in other words, to give up normal marriage in favour of the heavenly bridal chamber? In research, this is often assumed (cf. Williams 1996: 148–9), but the opposite position can also be maintained (DeConick 2003: 335).
No [one can] know when [the husband] and the wife have intercourse with one another except the two of them. Indeed marriage in the world (
) is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. If there is a hidden quality to the marriage of defilement (
), how much more is the undefiled marriage (
) a true mystery! It is not fleshly but pure. It belongs not to desire but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night but to the day and the light. (81,34–82,10; Layton and Isenberg 1989: 205–7)
The distinction between different types of marriage is clear: the marriage of defilement corresponds to the marriage of the world and is set apart from undefiled marriage. This is probably a distinction between the earthly and the heavenly level; the latter marriage is celebrated in the true bridal chamber, while the former is not only inferior, but is also linguistically devalued (defilement). Despite this clear hierarchy, it seems to me that secular marriage nevertheless has a certain value as an earthly image of heavenly circumstances (64,30–65,1). Moreover, the argument assumes a familiarity with the conditions of earthly marriage.
On the other hand, there are passages in Gos. Phil. which seem to prohibit sexuality, at least for women: a bridal chamber is not for the animals, nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women (
); but it is for free men and virgins (
) (69,1–4; Layton and Isenberg 1989: 179). But it is not clear how literally this statement is to be understood. Groups of people are differentiated here, but animals are certainly meant figuratively—and probably slaves as well—so why not the virgins? (Cf. Lundhaug 2010: 302.)
In my opinion, it is unlikely that Gos. Phil. completely rejects earthly marriage. As an image of the heavenly bridal chamber, earthly marriage has a certain value and might be an option for the reader (Buckley 1986: 121; Zimmermann 2001: 586; Lundhaug 2010: 277–8; Heimola 2011: 283–4), at least for men. This view also conforms to the non-ascetic interpretation of Gos. Eg. by the Valentinians. A rejection of procreation is also not found. At the same time, there is no such clear involvement of women as in Gos. Thom. and other writings. Is concentrating on the spiritual life and marriage at the same time easier among men?
CONCLUSION
The results of this analysis of the apocryphal gospels are rather mixed. Asceticism as a direct call to abstinence is not to be found, except in Thom. Cont. But there is evidence for an early ascetic interpretation of Gos. Eg., and in Gos. Thom. an ‘ascetic reception history’ can be seen. Moreover, many statements fit well in an ascetic context and might be read as supporting such a lifestyle. There are derogatory names for sexual activities (unclean rubbing, polluted intercourse, marriage of defilement); a basic connection of birth from a woman with death and the rejection of procreation and family relationships can be found as well, but also spiritual variants of sexual life (bridal chamber, companions). To complicate matters, sexual language is often used in a figurative sense. The desire and the inner fire of Thom. Cont., the works of the female of Gos. Eg., or terms such as adultery or unclean rubbing from Gos. Mary and Soph. Jes. Chr. are meant or can be interpreted in a much more general way than appears at first sight; and as a consequence, the ascetic effect diminishes. In any case, sexuality is contrasted with striving for spiritual values; it means entering a material world with desires and physicality—therefore, such an entering can also be described with sexual imagery.
All the writings examined—in conformity with the general opinion of the time in which they were written—show a clear hierarchy between spiritual values that constitute true humanity, and the physical and material side, to which sexuality and desires belong. In addition, sexuality, birth, and mortality are connected, and sexuality is seen as the origin of death which therefore can not be overcome by procreation (Brown 1988: 86). In this context, sexuality is not a positive value, but also not important. It fits the basic orientation toward the spiritual and heavenly things that sexuality is largely not an issue. However, this orientation does not necessarily have to result in abstinence; a married life (including sexuality without desire) is quite conceivable. Such a view is, in my opinion, most clearly available in Gos. Phil., where the idea of the heavenly bridal chamber arguably requires—with all its subordination—a nevertheless positive view of earthly family life. Presumably an openness to procreation, perhaps even an intention of propagation of the chosen, is in the background. Having children, however, is viewed negatively in other writings, which points to an ascetic practice, as fertility is often used as a justification for marriage, even if desires are rejected (Brown 1988: 133; Francis 1995: 14).
The rejection of reproduction is often associated with ideas of the dissolution of gender differentiation, the return to an original unity, the dissolution of femininity—and a strong role for female disciples. This applies to Gos. Thom., Gos. Eg., Dial. Sav., Soph. Jes. Chr., possibly also for Gos. Mary—but not for Gos. Phil., Thom. Cont., and Ap. John. Obviously both aspects are related: the dissolution of gender difference allows the participation of women. Precisely for women, a life without sexuality is, however, in my opinion an inevitable consequence, even if the express request for it is missing.
So there is, in some texts, a theology with potentially ascetic consequences that has a specific profile, despite some variations between the writings. Salvation is regarded as a return to an original state of creation, before sexual differentiation and without birth and death. This condition can actually be achieved—particularly in Gos. Thom. Asceticism is a logical consequence of this old/new angelic state; whether it was absolutely required cannot be seen from the texts. Anyway, asceticism is not a prerequisite; in other words, not the path towards this state.
The idea of creation in stages (in which a spiritual and sexually undifferentiated human being is created first, followed by the physical existence which includes sexuality and mortality) is well documented, especially in Philo. Additionally there is the idea of an angelic existence after the resurrection. Already in the first century, the community at Corinth might have used this concept and combined it with the idea of a resurrection which has already taken place (Heininger 2010b: 389–90). In 1 Corinthians, the consequences are also visible, specifically in relation to the role of women and of asceticism. Although the reconstruction of Corinthian positions is loaded with great uncertainty, I note a connection here, because the practical implications of these theological ideas can be better seen than in the non-canonical gospels. Moreover, this shows that the theological concept is relatively old.
In Corinth there was clearly a significant portion of the community who wanted to live ascetically, without sexuality, but also others who did not want to or could not do so (1 Cor. 7). There is some evidence that women especially lived abstinently, and thus difficulties originated within families (Wire 1988: 313–14). Presumably these are the same women who are prophesying in 1 Cor. 11. Whatever the exact problem is there, at least in the context of worship some women avoided a gender-typical hairstyle or head covering. Perhaps they justified their behaviour by means of creation theology. Very likely the Pauline formula of the dissolution of the differences in Christ (Gal. 3.28) lies in the background, which women have taken seriously in practice and which then had asceticism as a consequence (Merklein 1997: 235, 243–4). In Corinth, therefore, one already finds the combination of creation theology, realized eschatology, dissolution of gender difference, ascetic tendencies, and active women. The connection of theology, asceticism, and female participation is confirmed, but that does not imply that the various groups and writings are directly related; the combination may have objective reasons and therefore developed independently. These ideas do not require a gnostic mythology, although they can be combined with it (Soph. Jes. Chr.). A socially critical, radical attitude seems to be important, which is clearly present in Gos. Thom., and also in Corinth. On the other hand, in Ap. John and Gos. Phil., both of which are clearly gnostic, all elements are much less visible. In the Pauline communities as well as in gnostic contexts, a tendency to mitigate in favour of social integration can be observed with respect to both asceticism and the activities of women (Francis 1995: 167–77; Williams 1996: 107–15; Merklein 1997: 257–8).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Texts and Translations
Layton, B. and Lambdin, T. O. (1989). ‘The Gospel According to Thomas’, in Bentley Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (NHS 20). Leiden: Brill, I.38–128.
Layton, B. and Isenberg, W. W. (1989). ‘The Gospel According to Philip’, in Bentley Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (NHS 20). Leiden: Brill, I.131–215.
Layton, B. and Turner, J. D. (1989). ‘The Book of Thomas the Contender Writing to the Perfect’, in Bentley Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (NHS 21). Leiden: Brill, II.173–205.
Oulton, J. E. L. and Chadwick, H. (eds) (1954). The Library of Christian Classics, II: Alexandrian Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Parrott, D. M. (ed.) (1991). Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1 with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081: Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHS 27). Leiden: Brill.
Waldstein, M. and Wisse, F. (eds) (1995). The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1; with BG 8502,2 (NHMS 33). Leiden: Brill.
Secondary Literature
Brown, P. (1988). The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Buckley, J. J. (1986). Female Fault and Fulfillment in Gnosticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
DeConick, A. D. (2003). ‘The Great Mystery of Marriage: Sex and Conception in Ancient Valentinian Traditions’, Vigiliae Christianae 57: 307–42.
Dillon, J. M. (1995). ‘Rejecting the Body, Refining the Body: Some Remarks on the Development of Platonist Asceticism’, in V. L. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (eds), Asceticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 80–7.
Francis, J. A. (1995). Subversive Virtue: Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Heimola, M. (2011). Christian Identity in the Gospel of Philip (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 102). Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society.
Heininger, B. (2010a). ‘Das “Sakrament des Brautgemachs” im Philippusevangelium’, in B. Heininger (ed.), Die Inkulturation des Christentums (WUNT 255). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 275–308.
Heininger, B. (2010b). ‘Jenseits von männlich und weiblich: Das Thomasevangelium im frühchristlichen Diskurs der Geschlechter’, in B. Heininger (ed.), Die Inkulturation des Christentums (WUNT 255). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 357–95.
King, K. L. (2003). The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press.
Lundhaug, H. (2010). Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the ‘Gospel of Philip’ and the ‘Exegesis of the Soul’ (NHMS 73). Leiden: Brill.
Markschies, C. (2012). ‘Das Evangelium nach den Ägyptern’, in C. Markschies and J. Schröter (eds), Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, I. Band: Evangelien und Verwandtes. Teilband 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 661–82.
Merklein, H. (1997). ‘Im Spannungsfeld von Protologie und Eschatologie: Zur kurzen Geschichte der aktiven Beteiligung von Frauen in paulinischen Gemeinden’, in M. Evang et al. (eds), Eschatologie und Schöpfung (BZNW 89). Berlin: De Gruyter, 231–59.
Pagels, E. (1999). ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, Journal of Biblical Literature 118: 477–96.
Patterson, S. J. (2008). ‘Jesus Meets Plato: The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas and Middle Platonism’, in J. Frey et al. (eds), Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung—Rezeption—Theologie (BZNW 157). Berlin: De Gruyter, 181–205.
Petersen, S. (1999). ‘Zerstört die Werke der Weiblichkeit!’ Maria Magdalena, Salome und andere Jüngerinnen Jesu in christlich-gnostischen Schriften (NHMS 48). Leiden: Brill.
Schenke, H.-M. (2001). ‘Das Buch des Thomas (NHC II,7)’, in H.-M. Schenke et al. (eds), Nag Hammadi Deutsch, 1. Band: NHC I,1–V,1 (GCS NF 8). Berlin: De Gruyter, 279–91.
Standhartinger, A. (2007). ‘Einssein an Gottes Brust (Stillkinder): EvThom 22’, in R. Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 883–7.
Tuckett, C. (2007). The Gospel of Mary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uro, R. (1998). ‘Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?’, in R. Uro (ed.), Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 140–62.
Uro, R. (2003). Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas. London: T&T Clark.
Wire, A. C. (1988). ‘The Social Function of Women’s Asceticism in the Roman East’, in K. L. King (ed.), Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 308–23.
Williams, M. A. (1996). Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Wisse, F. (1988). ‘Flee Femininity’, in K. L. King (ed.), Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 297–307.
Zimmermann, R. (2001). Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).