Apostolic Authority and Women in Second-Century Christianity

Outi Lehtipuu, University of Helsinki

The early Christ movement was never exclusively male. Paul’s letters form an important early

source material that attests to women’s active participation in the movement and makes the question

of Paul’s reception in relation to women an important one. Even though women appear much less

frequently than do men in the available sources, questions pertaining to women are hardly minority

issues, as approximately half of any given population is usually female. There is no reason,

therefore, not to think that women constituted a substantial part in early Christian groups. If we, as

scholars, seek to achieve a balanced picture of the past, we cannot ignore the existence of women in

early Christianity nor that of slaves and other less privileged people similarly underrepresented in

ancient sources. Since our reconstructions of the past in turn impact and reflect our present-day

attitudes, the quest for an inclusive picture of the past is furthermore an ethical imperative.

In this essay, I approach the reception of Paul in the second century from the point of view of how

his apostolic authority was conveyed and used in sources from the second (and early third) century

that speak about women. While earlier scholarship has often postulated a sharp distinction between

the prototypes of a submissive wife and an autonomous virgin—illustrated by the pastoral epistles,

on the one hand, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla, on the other—my aim is to add further nuances

and complications to this picture. While I acknowledge both the differences between the teachings

of Paul and later representations thereof concerning women in these texts and the ample evidence

that points to competing memories of Paul in the second century, I also believe that this is hardly

the entire story. I argue that it is impossible to reconstruct distinct communities behind these textual

corpora—some that accept women in public activities and others that do not.

1

It is more likely that different texts could have been read (and heard) by common audiences

individuals among which would have employed different interpretative strategies to make sense of

the ambiguous features in different representations of Paul’s teachings on women. Already the

earliest Pauline texts, the so-called “undisputed” letters, contain several such approaches to

questions pertaining to women, an ambiguity that hardly dissipated in the second century. It is also

worth keeping in mind that reception is an on-going process; that is, texts from the second century

are not contained to their own time but already themselves have a reception history of their own. To

begin this analysis, it is necessary first to briefly discuss questions such as whom or what are we

talking about when discussing “Paul in the second century” and where and when his reception

begins.

Paul in the Second Century

There is now wide scholarly agreement that, when we discuss Paul’s influence in the second and

subsequent centuries, we need to talk about the receptions of Paul—i.e., in plural.1 For the past

three or four decades, Paul’s legacy has increasingly been viewed as “ambiguous,” “diverse,” and

“multiform”2 or as “a complex set of fragmented trajectories,” as Benjamin White puts it in his 1 This new understanding of Pauline reception was heralded by the influential monographs of Andreas Lindemann,

Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der

frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) and Ernst Dassmann, Der Stachel im

Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus (Münster: Aschendorff), both of which appeared in 1979.

Cf. the volume of collected essays by William S. Babcock, ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern

Methodist University Press), published in 1990. More recent important contributions include Richard Pervo, The

Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010) and Benjamin White,

Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the Apostle (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2014). See also the essays in Paul and the Second Century (ed. M. F. Bird & J. R. Dodson; London: T&T Clark, 2011)

and Ancient Perspectives on Paul (ed. T. Nicklas, A. Merkt & J. Verheyden; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

2013).2 Outi Lehtipuu, “The Example of Thecla and the Example(s) of Paul: Disputing Women’s Role in Early Christianity”

in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary Approaches (ed. S. Ahearne-Kroll, P. Holloway & J.

Kelhoffer; WUNT 263; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 351; James W. Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the

2

recent monograph Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the

Apostle.3 By the second century, Paul had become the Apostle par excellence, the most frequently

cited early Christian authority,4 striking considering that Paul’s own letters indicate that he was a

controversial figure in his time who had constantly to defend his own position and apostleship.5

However, since, soon after his death, letters were penned under his name and stories circulated

about his travels, preaching, and miracles, he must also have enjoyed broad respect, an important

reminder that Paul’s letters are rhetorical constructions, not direct reports of the incidents of his life.

By the second century, Paul had become an important authority figure and a guarantor of the true

faith for most Christians.6 No longer was the apostle himself controversial—rather, what was

disputed was who represented him and his legacy in the right way.7

Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 2; Daniel Marguerat, “Paul après Paul: une histoire de reception” in

New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 321.3 White, Remembering Paul, 66.4 Outi Lehtipuu, “‘Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God’: The Transformation of the Flesh in the Early

Christian Debates Concerning Resurrection,” in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Taxonomies and Transformative

Practices in Early Christianity (ed. T. K. Seim & J. Økland; Ekstasis 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2009), 161.5 Cf. 2 Cor 11 but also Gal 1:10–2:14; 1 Cor 15:8–10. See further Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The

Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 61–63, 307–308.6 Contra the view championed in earlier scholarship, according to which Paul was known in the second century as the

“apostle of the heretics” until Irenaeus “saved” his reputation. See Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the

Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015),

87–90. Certainly, opposition to Paul persisted, but this seems to have been a minority position. According to Irenaeus,

Haer. 1.26.2, the so-called Ebionites “repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.” It

is, however, far from certain who these people were and how trustworthy Irenaeus’s description of them is. See further

Sakari Häkkinen, “Ebionites,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics” (ed. A. Marjanen & P.

Luomanen; VCSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 247–78. The so-called pseudo-Clementine literature is also characterized

by “an express anti-Paulinism”; F. Stanley Jones, “Jewish-Christianity of the Pseudo-Clementines” in A Companion to

Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” 332.7 See Judith M. Lieu, “The Battle for Paul in the Second Century” in Irish Theological Quarterly 75.1 (2010): 3–14, and

“‘As Much My Apostle as Christ is Mine’: The Dispute over Paul between Tertullian and Marcion” in Early

Christianity 1 (2010): 41–59; Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead, 86–108.

3

Another important shift in scholarship that has emerged side-by-side with the notion of diverse

receptions of Paul is the focus on images of the apostle (Paulusbilder) as a key to understanding

how Paul’s letters were interpreted.8 In other words, Paul’s image as an authoritative figure is the

foremost reason why he is cited and his texts circulated and read. It thus matters how one imagines

Paul—the interpretation of his texts follows this image, not vice versa. Moreover, the receptions of

Paul are not only receptions of his letters but also of Paul himself.9 Often, more important than texts

ascribed to the apostle were the traditions told about him. Even when Paul’s letters began to

circulate, oral traditions about him continued. Written texts influenced orally transmitted stories and

vice versa; Paul’s letters thus formed only one part of the Pauline traditions.10 For example, the Acts

of the Apostles certainly belongs to the “reception of Paul” and can be called “Pauline,” even

though it never presents the apostle as a writer of letters nor shows an awareness of or interest in

Paul’s letters. Typical of our present-day bookish culture, scholars have debated whether the author

of Acts even knew Paul’s letters.11 Be that as it may (and I am inclined to think he did know them—

if he did not, we must presume that Paul’s letters did not have a wide circulation at the time of the

writing of Acts),12 it is certain that his Paul was not an “epistolary” Paul but something else: a

preacher, a missionary, and a healer.13 The same can be said of the apocryphal Acts of Paul.

8 White, Remembering Paul, 79. Cf. Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, who uses the expression passim.9 Cf. Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Letters, and the Early Church, 1–2: “The adaptation of Paul and his words by the

early Christians was more than an issue of simple textual reinterpretation. It was also a matter of an evolving Pauline

image merging with developing concerns of the day, where the words and ideas of the apostle came to bear on the

circumstances and conflicts of the church.” 10 White, Remembering Paul, 89. On the other hand, though Joseph R. Dodson acknowledges the importance of Paul’s

“persona” as part of his legacy, he measures the extent of Paul’s influence in the second century by posing “questions

such as: how often did second-century authors refer to Paul? How often did the authors cite, paraphrase, echo, or imitate

the form of the apostle’s work?” Dodson, “Introduction” in Paul and the Second Century (ed. M. F. Bird & J. R.

Dodson; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 1–17 (quote on p. 4).11 See, e.g., Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge,

2006), 54–55.12 Cf. Martin Wessbrandt, “Transformed Readings: Negotiations of Cult in Paul, Hebrews, and First Clement” (Ph. D.

Diss. Lund University, 2017), 91–93.13 Cf. Marguerat, “Paul après Paul,” 323–24.

4

Although the composite work includes Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthian community (the

so-called 3 Corinthians), this is a separate part of the work that remains rather unconnected with the

rest of the narrative. In the story of Thecla, which is the part of the Acts of Paul of primary interest

here, Paul’s letters do not play a role at all. The image of Paul in this text is rather based on the

deeds and preaching of the apostle, not on a repetition of the words of his epistles.14

It goes without saying that there were several diverging images of Paul. In the second century (and

beyond), there was not yet an institutionalized means to control these images, and, consequently,

the available sources attest to several struggles over the question of “who got Paul right.” Since

Paul represented the true apostolic faith, the debate raged over who could be said to represent this

legacy—who were genuine Christians and who were not.15 For example, at the end of book four of

his Against Heresies, Irenaeus claims that those he calls “heretics” have completely misunderstood

Paul, so he devotes the fifth book of his work expounding upon what the apostle really meant, how

Paul was the “preacher of truth”—truth being what Irenaeus conceived of to be the Christian

message.16

14 The Acts of Paul and Thecla includes a speech by Paul delivered in the house of Onesiphorus consisting of a series of

thirteen macarisms. While some of these contain echoes of Paul’s letters, most notably the expression “those who have

wives as though they had none” (οἱ ἔχοντες γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες; 1 Cor 7:29; cf. Acts of Paul and Thecla 5), one can

detect very little direct influence on the part of the Pauline texts. For a thorough analysis of the macarisms, see Martin

Ebner, “Paulinische Seligspreisungen à la Thekla: Narrative Relekture der Makarismenreihe in ActThecl 5f” in Aus

Liebe zu Paulus?: Die Akte Thekla neu aufgerollt (ed. M. Ebner; Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 64–79.15 Outi Lehtipuu, “Who Has the Right to Be Called a Christian? Deviance and Christian Identity in Tertullian’s On the

Prescription of Heretics” in Methods, Theories, Imagination: Social Scientific Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. D.

Chalcraft, R. Watson & F. Uhlenbruch; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014), 80–98.16 Haer. 4.41.4. In several Pauline letters, the apostle claims to represent “the word of truth” (2 Cor 6:7; Eph 1:13; Col

1:5; 2 Tim 2:15), the same expression taken up in several later writings representing quite different “truths”; cf. Treat.

Res. (NHC I 4) 43.25–34; Pseudo-Justin, Res. 1.1; Theophilus, Autol. 2.14.)

5

Thus, with the circulation of his letters, Paul had not only “become a book” in the second century,17

he also continued to be the hero of many stories in both oral and written traditions. These receptions

of Paul included competing, sometimes diametrically opposite memories of the apostle; sometimes,

more than one image of Paul appear in one and the same text—and “Paul” as a text was fluid, as

texts were not only copied but also “corrected” not necessarily with consistency or coherence in

mind. Paul’s legacy was ambiguous, and the ambiguity lived on in his legacy, a nature clearly

reflected in texts that invoke the apostle’s authority in their teaching concerning women.

Where and When Does the Reception of Paul Begin?

Who of all the different Pauls of the second century is the “real” Paul?18 In the provocative words of

Richard Pervo, “the only real Paul is the dead Paul”19—which I understand to mean that the only

Paul we can reach is Paul as he was remembered. By the second century, Paul had long been dead,

as were those with first-hand experiences of the apostle. Memories of him lived on in stories about

the apostle and the letters written by him—and in stories and letters that arose posthumously.

The traditional scholarly view makes a sharp distinction between the seven “undisputed” letters by

the “historical Paul” and the later pseudo-Pauline letters, ascribed to the apostle but authored by

someone else. The “authentic” message of Paul, it is claimed, should be sought only in the former,

while the latter represent the earliest receptions of Paul.20 Recently, this assumption, as so many

other scholarly truths, has been called into question. We lack even the basic evidence about the

earliest textual history of Paul’s letters. How and where were they copied and circulated? Who

17 Cf. Pervo, Making of Paul, 23–61.18 Cf. Lieu, “The Battle for Paul,” 5–6.19 Pervo, Making of Paul, 2.20 Cf., e. g., Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1995).

6

gathered them together and why? What criteria did he (or she) have in mind when choosing what to

include (or exclude)? How much editing was involved? How closely does the edited text correspond

to what Paul wrote (or dictated)? Answers to these questions may vary from letter to letter. For

example, if 2 Corinthians is a compilation of two or more letters, as the majority of scholars

believes,21 the text we have now is as much a product of the compiler as it is of Paul. How much,

then, does 2 Corinthians reflect Paul’s ideas, and what can we learn about the contexts, both literary

and social, wherein these ideas were first produced?22

Whatever the answers to these and similar such questions may be, they show that we cannot simply

construct the “historical Paul” based on his letters. Even if the ipsissima vox of Paul is stronger in

his letters than is the ipsissima vox Jesus in the gospels, even the so-called undisputed letters must

be acknowledged as representations of the apostle and, in the form accessible to us today, must

therefore belong to the reception of Paul.23 While there are certainly different layers of tradition, and

it is possible to discern earlier layers (say, Romans or Galatians) from later ones (e.g., pastorals),

these do not ameliorate the problem that the only Paul we can access is a figure of tradition, Paul as

he was remembered.24

21 Cf. Pervo, Making of Paul, 38–43.22 Cf. the much more optimistic assessment of Lars Aejmelaeus: “We would know much less about his life and have a

much more one-sided picture of him if this document [= 2 Corinthians] were lacking.” Lars Aejmelaeus, “‘Christ Is

Weak in Paul’: The Opposition to Paul in Corinth” in The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approached to Pauline Theology (ed.

Lars Aejmelaeus & Antti Mustakallio; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 117.23 Recent reception-historical theories emphasize that all meaning-making, scholarly study included, belongs to the

sphere of reception. Cf. James E. Harding, “What Is Reception History, and What Happens to You if You Do It?” in

Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice (ed. Emma England & William John Lyons; London:

Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 31–44. 24 Cf. White, Remembering Paul, 70–107. “Questions like Do the Pastoral Epistles or the Acts of Paul and Thecla better

represent the ‘historical’ Paul? suggest that there is some Archimedean point from which we as twenty-first-century

scholars can reconstruct an untraditioned Paul” (p.106).

7

The distinction between an authentic Paul and a pseudo-Paul is a product of modern academic

scholarship and makes little sense when investigating the receptions of Paul in the second and

subsequent centuries. Until the birth of historical-critical scholarship, the Paul of the deutero-

Pauline and pastoral letters was just as “authentic” as the Paul of the “undisputed” letters. A case in

point are the (in)famous words in 1 Corinthians 14 concerning women and their behavior in the

Corinthian cultic assembly:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.  If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. (vv. 33b–36)25

Present-day biblical scholars may have good grounds for claiming that these verses are an

interpolation made in the spirit of the pastoral epistles26 and, thus, do not represent what Paul

himself thought about women’s behavior, but, for centuries, readers of Paul took these verses as the

authoritative words of Paul, the impact of which has been profound.27

As none of the known manuscripts omits the verses, I agree with Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza that

“it is exegetically more sound to accept them as original Pauline statements.”28 For the purposes of

second-century reception, it makes little difference whether it was Paul himself who actually wrote

25 All biblical quotations are according to the New Revised Standard Version if not otherwise noted.26 This has become a standard view of scholarship; see, e.g. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who

Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 183–86, and Jay Eldon Epp, Junia: The First

Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005), 14–20. There are, however, powerful opposing voices, including many

feminist scholars such as Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of

Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 1986), 230–33, and Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets:

A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 149–52. 27 Cf. Mary Daly, who writes the following in her pioneering book Beyond God the Father: “From the point of view of

scriptural scholarship the distinction between the deutero-Pauline authors and ‘the real Paul’ is important, no doubt.

However, the discussion is hardly central to women’s concern with the oppressiveness of patriarchal religion. The point

is that for nearly two thousand years the passages have been used to enforce sexual hierarchy.” Mary Daly, Beyond God

the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), 5.28 Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 230. A few manuscripts locate the verses only after v. 40, but this, in my view,

cannot be taken as conclusive evidence; see further David W. Odell-Scott, “Editorial Dilemma: The Interpolation of 1

Cor 14:34–35 in the Western Manuscripts of D, G, and 88” in Biblical Theology Bulletin 30, 2 (2000): 68–74.

8

those words; they carried apostolic authority, and their authorship was not questioned. We may also

ask what we have gained, should the interpolation theory be proven true. Would it “liberate Paul”

from charges of misogyny?29 But why should Paul need to be liberated in the first place—if not for

the fact that Paul the apostle remains an authoritative figure for many individuals, and we thus wish

for him to represent the values of our time?30 Therefore, it is not only second-century but also

modern interpreters whose readings of Paul are informed by their Paulusbilder.

Paul’s world—as well as the second-century world—was thoroughly gendered, and there is enough

evidence to claim with Jorunn Økland that “Paul does not turn out to be less patriarchal if only

14.33b–36 are considered a gloss.”31 Økland argues that we should not expect Paul to have a

consistent “view of women” at all; on the contrary, contradictions are “what we must expect.”32

Typical of a male in an androcentric world, Paul is indifferent toward women—at least until women

become an explicit problem. This indifference simultaneously accentuates his esteem toward certain

women—they are not primarily women but his co-workers in Christ.33

In the deutero-Pauline and pastoral letters, there is a development toward restricting women’s

activities and subordinating them under male control. However, there is no way of knowing whether

the “historical” Paul objected to this gender relation—in light of how he envisions the hierarchical

gendered universe in 1 Corinthians 11, however, this seems unlikely. All in all, the Pauline legacy

in relation to women is complex and inconsistent, making it possible to read many different “views

of women” from his texts. Similar inconsistencies can also be found in the letters penned under his

29 Cf. Elliott, Liberating Paul, 52–54.30 Cf. Aejmelaeus who admits belonging among those “who still admire Paul after two thousand years.” “Christ Is

Weak in Paul,” 117.31 Jorunn Økland, Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Place

(JSNTSup. 269; London & New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 8. Cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 11:1–16.32 Økland, Women in Their Place, 20–22.33 Such as Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, and other women mentioned in Romans 16.

9

name and other ancient texts. For example, despite the hierarchical patterns of the household codes,

Colossians mentions a woman, Nympha, who hosts a congregation in her house,34 and Ignatius of

Antioch, who also refers to hierarchical gender structures, greets female, in the fashion of Paul,

among the male recipients of his epistles.35

Receptions of Paul in Relation to Women

An oft quoted and illuminating example of the diverging receptions of Paul in relation to women is

offered by Tertullian in the following excerpt from his treatise on baptism:

But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and to baptize, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add to Paul’s reputation, was found out, and though he confessed he had done it for love of Paul, resigned from his position. How could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn in her own right? Let them keep silent, he says, and ask their husbands at home.36

This passage demonstrates two opposing ways of invoking Paul’s authority and understanding his

position toward teaching activity on the part of women. On the one hand, there were those

according to whom Paul had allowed his female disciple Thecla to teach and perform baptisms; on

the other hand, were those who, like Tertullian, claimed the apostle had forbidden women from

teaching. There were certainly female teachers—according to Tertullian himself, he wrote his

34 Col 4:15. On Nympha and other women hosts of Christian house churches, see Kaisa-Maria Pihlava, Forgotten

Women Leaders: The Authority of Women Hosts of Early Christian Gatherings in the First and Second Centuries C.E.

(Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 113; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2017). On the masculinizing

tendencies of the name in manuscript tradition, see Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 51.35 Ign. Pol. 4–5 and 8:2–3; cf. Ign. Smyrn. 13:1–2. See further Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Rereading Paul: Early

Interpreters of Paul on Women and Gender” in Women & Christian Origins (ed. R. S. Kraemer and M. R. D’Angelo;

New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 199–218.36 Bapt. 17.5, translation slightly modified from Ernest Evans, Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (London: SPCK, 1964).

For the textual problems concerning the passage, see A. Hilhorst, “Tertullian and the Acts of Paul,” in The Apocryphal

Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. J. N. Bremmer; Kampen: Pharos, 1996), 150–63 and the appendix in Dietrich Schleyer,

Tertullian De Baptismo, De Oratione—Von der Taufe, Vom Gebet (FC 76; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 280–87.

10

treatise in order to counteract a “female viper” (vipera), whose teaching “destroys baptism.”37 Who

she was and what her teaching entailed is not reported, but the wording indicates that she did not

baptize herself. It seems that the reason Tertullian opposes her is because she rejects baptism.

Whether Tertullian knew or had encountered other women who actually did perform baptisms is not

entirely clear.38 The words “unless some new serpent appears” seem to indicate that, in his view,

having women perform baptism is the worst imaginable scenario, perhaps the inevitable next step if

women are allowed to teach.39

Be that as it may, the above passage shows that Tertullian knew of traditions that told of Paul’s

commissioning of Thecla and thereby acknowledged the “danger” inherent in them. These

traditions he counters by claiming them as forgeries; the “real Paul,” according to Tertullian, would

never have done such a thing. To show what Paul himself thought, Tertullian quotes the words of

the apostle in 1 Corinthians 14; in reality, Tertullian explains, the apostle did not even allow a

woman to learn in her own right, let alone teach others, but rather ordered her to keep silent.

Tertullian reminds his audience that this “female monster” (monstrosissima), because she is a

woman, has “no right to teach even correctly”—another reference to Paul’s words, this time to 1

Timothy: “I permit no woman to teach.”40

37 Bapt. 1.2.38 Cf. Praescr. 41.5.39 Bapt. 17.4. The Latin text runs as follows: petulantia autem mulieris quae usurpavit docere utique non etiam

tinguendi ius sibi rapiet, nisi si quae nova bestia venerit similis pristinae, ut quemadmodum illa baptismum auferebat ita

aliqua per se [eum] conferat. I take it to mean that, according to Tertullian, even though the woman dares to teach, she

has not “seized” (rapiet) the right to baptize, which would require the appearance of “a new beast, similar to the original

one” (cf. Gen 3:1.) 40 Bapt. 1.3; cf. 1 Tim 2:12.

11

In fact, 1 Timothy and other pastoral epistles have often been juxtaposed with the Acts of Paul and

Thecla, as these two bodies of texts seem to represent opposing views on women.41 According to

the teachings of the “pastoral Paul,” the proper place for women is at home, where they are to lead a

quiet life, in full subordination to their husbands. Their most important role is bearing children—a

role closely connected to their salvation:42

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. … Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.43

In the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the teaching of the apostle is of the opposite view. Paul is here a

preacher of an ascetic message, according to which both women and men should renounce all

sexual relations, where “those who have wives should be as though they had none.”44 In this text,

salvation does not come through childbearing; on the contrary, “there is no resurrection for you,

except you remain chaste, and do not defile the flesh, but keep it pure.”45 Thecla heeds Paul’s

teaching and acts accordingly. She deserts her fiancé and becomes an ardent follower of the apostle.

Convinced by her steadfastness in the face of her recent trials and tribulations, Paul commissions

Thecla to “go and teach the word of God,” which she does and thereby “enlightens many.” 46 Thus,

41 See, e.g., Shelly Matthews, “Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography” in Journal of Feminist Studies in

Religion 17 (2001): 39–55; Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention

und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 316–33; Elisabeth Esch-

Wermeling, Thekla—Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten (Münster:

Aschendorff, 2008), 32–63; Matthijs den Dulk, “I Permit No Woman to Teach Except for Thecla: The Curious Case of

the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul Reconsidered” in Novum Testamentum 54 (2012): 176–203.42 For a detailed treatment of the passage, see Anna Rebecca Solevåg, Birthing Salvation: Gender and Class in Early

Christian Childbearing Discourse (BibInt 121; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 85–135.43 1 Tim 2:11–12, 15.44 Acts of Paul and Thecla 5.45 Acts of Paul and Thecla 12. This is at least how Paul’s deceitful companions characterize his teaching, the

untrustworthy character of whom has compelled several scholars to doubt the accuracy of this description. However, the

narrator summarizes Paul’s teaching as “the word of God concerning continence and the resurrection,” and the

macarisms Paul proclaims in this text also fit the idea. Cf. Acts of Paul and Thecla 5–6. 46 Acts of Paul and Thecla 41, 43.

12

the narrative conjures up an alternative role for women: to stay celibate, act independently, and gain

an authoritative role as a teacher.

The author of 1 Timothy would have none of that. In the name of Paul, he warns his audience that

“some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons …

They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods…”47 He is especially concerned about

young widows, who, in his view, are “gadding about from house to house; and they are not merely

idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say.”48 The remedy is remarriage,

bearing children, and taking care of the household.

According to the influential theory posed by Dennis MacDonald more than three decades ago, the

pastoral epistles were written to oppose oral traditions that allowed women to teach and perform

baptisms, traditions which, in his view, also underlie the Acts of Paul and Thecla.49 Female teachers

who traveled from house to house were slandered as busybodies and their teachings styled as “old

wives tales”50 and idle gossiping. Despite the many difficulties in his theory, it nevertheless lives on

in some variations.51 While it is evident that the Acts of Paul and Thecla and 1 Timothy offer very

47 1 Tim 4:1–3.48 1 Tim 5:13–14.49 Dennis R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1983.)50 Cf. 1 Tim 4:7.51 MacDonald shows accurately that the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the pastoral epistles share many details, such as

names of certain persons and places. The difficulty, however, is, while all of these names appear only in 2 Timothy,

Paul’s denigrating statements on women all appear only in 1 Timothy; see Merz, Fiktive Selbstauslegung, 215–16; den

Dulk, “I Permit No Woman to Teach,” 190–95. Moreover, MacDonald wrote his study before the historians of ancient

Christianity had become aware of the complexities inherent in narrative representations, raised by the so-called

linguistic turn. Several scholars nowadays admit that they are “less confident” of and “more skeptical” about the

possibility of reconstructing women’s history on the basis of these texts; see Stephen J. Davis, “From Women’s Piety to

Male Devotion: Gender Studies, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Evidence of an Arabic Manuscripts” in Harvard

Theological Review 108:4 (2015): 582–84. However, MacDonald’s work still enjoys wide popularity, especially among

Anglophone scholars.

13

different receptions of Paul and very different possibilities for women, it is far too simplistic to

assume that these two texts are, in one way or another, directly commenting on each other.

Moreover, the roles of women in ancient Christianity included more variations than the binary

division of the submissive wife and the independent virgin can allow. In what follows, I will discuss

some aspects which point to a more complex picture of the receptions of Paul in discourses related

to women.

First, despite their obvious differences, the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the pastoral letters also

have common features. Both sets of texts present Paul as a heresy fighter, though they understand

heresy partly in different ways.52 Both share many concerns and present purity, chastity, and self-

control as Christian ideals53—even though, again, they seem to evidence opposing views as to how

these ideals should be put into practice; for example, whether “chastity” amount to being a pious

wife or a devout virgin. One might ask whether the ancient audiences of these texts would have

understood their visions of these two roles as mutually exclusive. Susan Hylen has recently argued

that modesty and humbleness were important ideals for all women, regardless of their sexual

status.54 The manuscript evidence shows that the Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly popular in

different parts of the early Christian world.55 On the other hand, the pastoral epistles were

incorporated into the Pauline corpus and eventually became part of the canonical writings. It is

improbable that the Christians who held the Acts of Paul and Thecla in high esteem would have

52 Cf. the accusations of false asceticism in 1 Tim 4:1–3, mentioned above. On the other hand, the Acts of Paul and

Thecla and 2 Timothy teach similarly concerning resurrection; cf. 2 Tim 2:16–18 and Acts of Paul and Thecla 14.53 2 Tim 1:3; 2:22; Titus 1:8, 15; 2:5, 14. Cf. Acts 24:25.54 Susan E. Hylen, A Modest Apostle: Thecla and the History of Women in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2015), 4, 73.55 In addition to nearly 50 manuscripts in Greek, there are ancient translations in, e.g., Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian,

Arabic, Ge’ez, and Old Slavonic.

14

ignored or dismissed the pastoral letters or vice versa.56 Those who knew of and respected both texts

were probably capable of merging the two different Pauls into one.

This is not to deny the diverging visions of the two texts. I find the attempts to harmonize their

differences unconvincing. Peter Dunn has argued that there are no real differences between the

texts; he claims, for example, that Thecla only instructs women in Tryphaena’s house and thus does

not exceed the commands of the Paul of the pastoral letters, as he only prohibits women from

teaching men but encourages older women to teach younger ones.57 This kind of reasoning does not

take into account that, in the narrative, Thecla is a young woman who teaches an older woman—

something that would probably have been opposed according to the hierarchical ideals reflected in

the pastoral letters. Moreover, not only young women but also young men are said to follow

Thecla;58 furthermore, at the end of the story, after Paul has commissioned Thecla to go out and

teach the word of God—and he does not restrict this activity to women only—the subjects of her

mission are referred to in masculine terms.59

Secondly, the simplified division between the submissive wife and the autonomous virgin ignores

the fact that Thecla only appears as an independent actor in one part of the story. Especially in the

beginning of the narrative, Thecla is characterized as “Paul’s lamb-like model disciple,”60 thus

fulfilling the ideals of the silent and submissive woman of the pastoral letters. Thecla’s role remains

ambiguous and her story, on the whole, still evidences a “patriarchal edge.”61 On the other hand, it 56 Hylen points out that Tertullian’s harsh attitude toward the Acts of Paul seems exceptional in light of other ancient

evidence; Modest Apostle, 103–104.57 Titus 2:4–5.58 Acts of Paul and Thecla 40.59 Acts of Paul and Thecla 43. The teaching activity of Thecla is reported briefly: “She enlightened many by the word of

God.” Noteworthy is that the “many” is in masculine (πολλούς, instead of the feminine πολλάς), indicating that there

was at least one man among those “enlightened” by Thecla. 60 Esch-Wermeling, Thekla—Paulusschülerin wider Willen, 44.61 White, Remembering Paul, 57.

15

would also be an underestimation to say that she only fulfills a rhetorical function in the male

conquest for power—as if questions of power, authority, and social order only concerned men.62

Moreover, the Paul of the Acts of Paul and Thecla is just as much a literary figure as is Thecla—just

like her, he also fulfills a rhetorical function and is used “to think with,” as Glenn Snyder puts it.63 It

is also worth pointing out that traditions surrounding Thecla did not end with the story we have in

the Acts of Paul and Thecla; rather, along with different Paulusbilder, there were also different

Theklabilder: a martyr, ideal virgin, miracle worker, etc.64

Thirdly, the binary opposition between the subordinate married woman and the independent

celibate does not account for the differences among women of varying socio-economic status and

age. Not all women had the opportunity to remain celibate had they wanted to, nor did all women

who wanted to (re)marry have the wherewithal to do so.65 Moreover, not all women who could

remain celibate—such as wealthy widows—chose to do so; for them, remarriage did not seem to

lead to the loss of their newly acquired independence. Rather, a new marriage often meant an

improved social status, extended networks, and other resources, as Susan Hylen points out.66 62 Matthews, “Thinking of Thecla,” 50.63 Glenn Snyder, Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2/352; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013),

137, 145.64 For the reception of Thecla, see the recent collection Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West (ed. J.

W. Barrier, J. N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas & A. Puig i Tàrrech; Studies in Early Christian Apocrypha 12; Leuven: Peeters,

2017.) Another curious example is the Ge’ez version of the Book of Thecla (as the narrative is entitled in the Ethiopic

manuscripts). This version remains silent about Thecla’s teaching and does not report that she baptizes herself. Instead,

her role as a martyr is emphasized. One important aspect of the story is the healing of the governor who condemns

Thecla and is therefore punished with a swollen ear. When the governor hears that Thecla has been saved from the wild

beasts (in the Ge’ez version, she does not fight beasts in the arena but is shut with them in a cave), he asks her to pray

for him. Thecla refuses, requesting that Paul is summoned. He comes and prays, and the governor is healed. The Ge’ez

text is published in Edgar J. Goodspeed, “The Book of Thecla” in American Journal of Semitic Languages and

Literatures 17.2 (1901): 65–95.65 The older (i.e., postmenopausal) and the more socio-economically inferior the woman was, the more difficult it was

for her to find a second husband; Jens-Uwe Krause, Witwen und Waisen in römischen Reich 1 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,

1994), 192–93.66 Hylen, Modest Apostle, 36–37.

16

Likewise, for many male writers, celibacy was the ideal lifestyle, and they do not express any

anxiety about virgins and widows being excessively independent from or uninhibited by male

control.67 Paul’s authority was also frequently invoked in discussions about remarriage. Those

opposed to a second marriage had to find ways to interpret the apostolic exhortation to have

younger widows remarry (1 Tim 5:14) in a way that suited their viewpoint. One common strategy

was to emphasize another apostolic saying, the wish that widows remain unmarried, as Paul himself

(1 Cor 7:7–8.)68

Lastly, how helpful are these texts in reconstructing the history of women and their social reality?

Can they truly help us postulate particular kinds of communities behind these texts? Even though

scholars have become aware of the fact that ancient texts are highly rhetorical representations that

do not, as such, reflect historical reality, it is still common to designate the Acts of Paul and Thecla

as a text from which “we get a glimpse into the struggle to deal with women’s roles.”69 Thecla,

however, is, in many ways, an exceptional figure who, instead of truly challenging the social order,

retreats from it to a world not available to most ordinary women, as Susan Calef argues.70 It may

similarly be asked how much the pastoral letters reflect real-life situations. Do the prohibition of

women to teach and the denigration of young widows as gossipers and busybodies prove that there

actually were wandering female teachers whom the author wanted to silence? Could it not just as

well be fantasy, an undesirable worst case scenario—something the author uses “to think with”?71

67 Lehtipuu, “Example of Thecla,” 364.68 Outi Lehtipuu, “To Remarry or Not to Remarry: 1 Timothy 5:14 in early Christian ascetic discourse” in Studia

Theologica (1/2017), 29–50.69 Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Letters, and the Early Church, 193.70 Susan A. Calef, “Thecla ‘Tried and True’ and the Inversion of Romance” in Feminist Companion to the New

Testament Apocrypha (ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins; Feminist Companion to the New Testament and

Early Christian Writings 11; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 184–85.71 See Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles (BZNW 164;

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 208–209.

17

No matter how fictional the female characters and their situations in these texts are, real women

heard and read about them. Unfortunately, there is little evidence on how they reacted and in what

ways they were inspired by the particular example of Thecla or the ideals offered by the pastoral

letters. In fact, the figure of Thecla was not only an example for women, as she also inspired men.72

No matter the extent of their devotion to her, however, little can be said of the attitudes of such men

toward women in general. For example, Tertullian speaks highly of female prophets whose speech,

in his view, is legitimized by the Spirit—just like Paul seems to accept the prophetic speech of the

Corinthian women (1 Cor 11:2–16).73 Yet, as we have seen, Tertullian is critical of women actively

engaging in ecclesiastical roles and he even invokes apostolic authority to bolster his critique.74

The receptions of Paul in relation to women in the second century were realized in many forms of

the apostle. There was the Paul who encouraged women to teach the word of God, and there was the

Paul who wanted to silence them. There were also many other real Pauls—perhaps as many as there

were ways of remembering him.

Bibliography

Aageson, James W. Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

2008.

72 Cf. Davis, “From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion,” 586–87.73 See, e.g., An. 9.4; Prax. 1.5. Cf. Marc. 5.8.11, where Tertullian explicitly treats Paul’s acceptance of female prophets

and his ordering of women to remain in silence in Corinth. On this dilemma, see further Lee A. Johnson, “Women and

Glossolalia in Pauline Communities:

The Relationship between Pneumatic Gifts and Authority” in Biblical Interpretation 21,2 (2013): 196–214.74 Antti Marjanen, “Female Prophets among Montanists” in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the

Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Eastern Near East (ed. J. Stökl and C. L. Carvalho; Atlanta: Society

of Biblical Literature, 2013), 131–32.

18

Aejmelaeus, Lars. “‘Christ Is Weak in Paul’: The Opposition to Paul in Corinth.” In The Nordic

Paul: Finnish Approached to Pauline Theology, ed. Lars Aejmelaeus & Antti Mustakallio.

London: T & T Clark, 2008, 117–31.

Babcock, William S. (ed.) Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Dallas: Southern Methodist University

Press, 1990.

Bird, Michael F. & Dodson, Joseph R. (ed.) Paul and the Second Century. London: T & T Clark,

2011.

Barrier, Jeremy W., Jan N. Bremmer, Tobias Nicklas & Armad Puig i Tàrrech (ed.) Thecla: Paul’s

Disciple and Saint in the East and West. Studies in Early Christian Apocrypha 12. Leuven:

Peeters, 2017.

Calef, Susan A. “Thecla ‘Tried and True’ and the Inversion of Romance.” Feminist Companion to

the New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins. Feminist

Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 11. London and New York:

T & T Clark, 2006, 163–85.

Clark Wire, Antoinette. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s

Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon

Press, 1973.

Dassmann, Ernst. Der Stachel im Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus.

Münster: Aschendorff, 1979.

Davis, Stephen J. “From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion: Gender Studies, the Acts of Paul and

Thecla, and the Evidence of an Arabic Manuscript.” Harvard Theological Review 108:4

(2015): 579–93.

Dodson, Joseph R. “Introduction.” In Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael F. Bird & Joseph

R. Dodson. London: T&T Clark, 2011, 1–17.

19

Dulk, Matthijs den. ”I Permit No Woman to Teach Except for Thecla: The Curious Case of the

Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 54 (2012): 176–

203.

Dunn, Peter. “The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century.” Ph. D. Diss,

Cambridge, 1996.

Ebner, Martin. “Paulinische Seligspreisungen à la Thekla: Narrative Relekture der Makarismenreihe

in ActThecl 5f” in Aus Liebe zu Paulus?: Die Akte Thekla neu aufgerollt. ed. Martin Ebner.

Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk, 2005, 64–79.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York:

HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1995.

Epp, Jay Eldon. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005.

Esch-Wermeling, Elisabeth. Thekla—Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung

in den Theklaakten. Münster: Aschendorff, 2008.

Evans, Ernest. Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism. London: SPCK, 1964.

Goodspeed, Edgar J. “The Book of Thecla.” American Journal of Semitic Languages and

Literatures 17,2 (1901): 65–95

Häkkinen, Sakari. “Ebionites.” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antti

Marjanen & Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005, 247–78.

Harding, James E. “What Is Reception History, and What Happens to You if You Do It?” In

Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, ed. Emma England & William

John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015, 31–44.

Hilhorst, A. “Tertullian and the Acts of Paul” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, ed. Jan

N. Bremmer. Kampen: Pharos, 1996, 150–63.

20

Hylen, Susan E. A Modest Apostle: Thecla and the History of Women in the Early Church. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2015.

Johnson, Lee A. “Women and Glossolalia in Pauline Communities:

The Relationship between Pneumatic Gifts and Authority.” Biblical Interpretation 21,2 (2013):

196–214.

Jones, F. Stanley. “Jewish-Christianity of the Pseudo-Clementines” in In A Companion to Second-

Century Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antti Marjanen & Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76. Leiden:

Brill, 2005, 315–34.

Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland. Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles.

BZNW 164. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Krause, Jens-Uwe. Witwen und Waisen in römischen Reich, vols. 1–2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,

1994.

Lehtipuu, Outi. “To Remarry or Not to Remarry: 1 Timothy 5:14 in early Christian ascetic

discourse.” Studia Theologica 1/2017: 29–50.

Lehtipuu, Outi. Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Lehtipuu, Outi. “Who Has the Right to Be Called a Christian? Deviance and Christian Identity in

Tertullian’s On the Prescription of Heretics” in Methods, Theories, Imagination: Social

Scientific Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. David Chalcraft, Rebecca Watson & Frauke

Uhlenbruch. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014, 80–98.

Lehtipuu, Outi. “The Example of Thecla and the Example(s) of Paul: Disputing Women’s Role in

Early Christianity” in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary

Approaches, eds. Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, Paul A. Holloway & James A. Kelhoffer.

WUNT 263. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 338–67.

21

Lehtipuu, Outi. “‘Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God’: The Transformation of the

Flesh in the Early Christian Debates Concerning Resurrection” in Metamorphoses:

Resurrection, Taxonomies and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, eds. Turid

Karlsen Seim & Jorunn Økland, Ekstasis 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, 147–68.

Lieu, Judith M. “‘As Much My Apostle as Christ is Mine’: The Dispute over Paul between

Tertullian and Marcion.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 41–59.

Lieu, Judith M. “The Battle for Paul in the Second Century. Irish Theological Quarterly 75,1

(2010): 3–14.

Lindemann, Andreas. Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der

paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. BHT 58. Tübingen:

Mohr Siebeck, 1979.

MacDonald, Dennis R. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

MacDonald Margaret Y. “Rereading Paul: Early Interpreters of Paul on Women and Gender” in

Women & Christian Origins, ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 199–218.

Marguerat, Daniel. “Paul après Paul: une histoire de reception.” New Testament Studies 54 (2008):

317–37.

Marjanen, Antti. “Female Prophets among Montanists.”Prophets Male and Female: Gender and

Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Eastern Near East, ed.

Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, 127–

43.

Matthews, Shelly. “Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography.” Journal of Feminist

Studies in Religion 17 (2001): 39–55.

22

Merz, Annette. Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und

Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. NTOA 52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.

Nicklas, Tobias, Andreas Merkt & Joseph Verheyden. Ancient Perspectives on Paul. NTOA 102.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

Odell-Scott, David W. “Editorial Dilemma: The Interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34–35 in the Western

Manuscripts of D, G, and 88.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 30, 2 (2000): 68–74.

Økland, Jorunn. Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and

Sanctuary Place. JSNTSup. 269. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Pervo, Richard I. The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity.

Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010.

Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, CA:

Polebridge, 2006.

Pihlava, Kaisa-Maria. Forgotten Women Leaders: The Authority of Women Hosts of Early

Christian Gatherings in the First and Second Centuries C.E. Publications of the Finnish

Exegetical Society 113. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2017.

Räisänen, Heikki. The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians.

Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010.

Schleyer, Dietrich. Tertullian De Baptismo, De Oratione—Von der Taufe, Vom Gebet. Fontes

Christiani 76. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of

Christian Origins. London: SCM Press, 1983.

Snyder, Glenn E. Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/352. Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2013.

Solevåg, Anna Rebecca. Birthing Salvation: Gender and Class in Early Christian Childbearing

Discourse. BibInt 121. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

23

Wessbrandt, Martin. “Transformed Readings: Negotiations of Cult in Paul, Hebrews, and First

Clement.” Ph. D. Diss. Lund University, 2017.

White, Benjamin L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the

Apostle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

24