Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Loader, William
2020.
Social Justice and Gender.
Open Theology,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 1,
p.
288.
Article contents
Paul, Plutarch and the Gender Dynamics of Prophecy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Abstract
This article compares two first-century authors, Paul and Plutarch, on the mechanics of inspiration and the role of gender in the prophetic process. Paul's First Corinthians and Plutarch's Delphic Dialogues (De Pythiae oraculis and De defectu oraculorum) were written by men who were observers of and commentators on the religious phenomenon of prophecy – that is, the communication of divine messages through human speakers. They also make statements about women that indicate that gender influenced their perceptions of prophecy. When these authors discuss prophecy at the conceptual level, gender does not affect their arguments, but when they turn to actual women prophets, they introduce ideas about gender and sex that shape their views of the prophetic process and the women who prophesy.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
1 On Klea's identity and education, see Stadter, Philip A., ‘Philosophos kai Philandros: Plutarch's View of Women in the Moralia and the Lives’, in Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to his Wife: English Translations, Commentary, Interpretive Essays, and a Bibliography (ed. Pomeroy, S. B.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) 173–5Google Scholar; Kapetanopoulos, E., ‘Klea and Leontis: Two Ladies from Delphi’, BCH 90 (1966) 119–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B. Puech, ‘Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque’, ANRW ii.33.6: 4842–3. On Plutarch's priesthood, see his Quaest. conv. 3.700e, and an inscription from his tenure as priest, CIG 1713.
2 Translations of Greek texts are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
3 I consider 1 Cor 14.34–5 authentic. The textual evidence for interpolation is limited, and arguments for their interpolation often depend on the interpreter's ideas about what is ‘consistent’ in Paul's thought. The Western text tradition (D F G 88* itd,g) often places vv. 34–5 after v. 40, and this placement – along with internal criteria – has caused scholars to suggest that Paul's text did not include the verses in question (see Fee, G., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 699–700Google Scholar). Other manuscripts that complicate the question are Codex Vaticanus (B), the twelfth-century minuscule 88 and the Latin Codex Fuldensis, which include scribal marks and transpositions (see Payne, P. B., ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 43 (1995) 250–9Google Scholar; Payne, P. B., ‘Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5’, NTS 63 (2017) 604–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar). However, no manuscript omits 14.34–5, and those manuscripts that transpose the verses can be traced to a common archetype and geographical area (see Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University Press, 1953) 84–6Google Scholar; Wire, A. C., The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 150Google Scholar; Niccum, C., ‘The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34–35’, NTS 43 (1997) 250–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Because no manuscripts completely omit these verses, the exegetical decision for interpolation depends on internal factors: whether the verses break the logic of the argument in ch. 14 and whether they reflect Paul's views on women.
4 This section on Plutarch's Delphic Dialogues shares content with my Women Praying and Prophesying in Corinth: Gender and Inspired Speech in First Corinthians (WUNT ii/448; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 117–26.
5 Male prophets are also attested at oracular temples in Klaros and Didyma. Didyma, in fact, changed from male to female prophets during the Hellenistic period, probably in response to the popularity of the Delphic female prophets. This change confirms the Greek conceptual connection between women and inspired divination. See Johnston, S. I., Ancient Greek Divination (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008) 76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Euripides fr. 494 (Collard and Cropp, LCL 504), translation modified so that προφητεύω is rendered ‘prophesy’ rather than ‘proclaim’. The fragment is from P.Berlin 5514 and a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus.
7 See Parke, H. W. and Wormell, D. E. W., The Delphic Oracle (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956)Google Scholar; Fontenrose, J. E., The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parker, R., ‘Greek States and Greek Oracles’, Crux: Essays in Greek History (ed. Cartledge, P. A. and Harvey, F. D.; Exeter: Duckworth, 1985) 298–326Google Scholar.
8 For critical commentaries on these two texts, see Flacelière, R., Dialogues Pythiques (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1974)Google Scholar; Schröder, S., Plutarchs Schrift De Pythiae oraculis: Text, Einleitung, und Kommentar (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For dating, see Ogilvie, R. M., ‘The Date of the De defectu oraculorum’, Phoenix 21.2 (1967) 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Based on internal and external evidence, Ogilvie suggests a date of composition for De defectu oraculorum between 95 and 115 ce. Since the two Delphic dialogues are related, De Pythiae oraculis was probably written around the same time.
9 In a similar vein, and informed by modern anthropological studies, Lisa Maurizio argues that ‘the Pythias responded to colonists’ needs by mirroring them: the Pythias developed a “style”, ambiguity, that traced the colonists’ desire to make the unknown readable by replicating it in language’ (Maurizio, L., ‘The Voice at the Center of the World: The Pythias’ Ambiguity and Authority’, Making Silence Speak: Women's Voice in Greek Literature and Society (ed. Lardinois, A. and McClure, L.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) 42Google Scholar). See also Walsh, L., ‘The Rhetoric of Oracles’, Rhetoric Society Quarterly 33.3 (2003) 55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Plutarch is not alone in the sexual interpretation of prophecy and emphasis on the prophet's virginity. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 14.26.2–6, also emphasises the virginity in the origin myth of Delphi. Portrayals of the prophet Cassandra suggest that her inspiration comes from sexual intercourse with Apollo: Aeschylus, Ag. 1202–13; Virgil, Aen. 2.402. Similarly, the Sibyl's inspiration resembles sex with the god: Ovid, Metam. 14.101. Plutarch's emphasis on virginity may be influenced by the famous virginal priestesses of Vesta in Rome (see Plutarch, Num. 9–10). The ‘Vestal Virgins’ certainly influenced the Latin author Lucan's portrayal of the Delphic priestess in Lucan, Bell. civ. 5.142–93. On the Vestals, see Schultz, C., Women's Religious Activity in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006) 7–21Google Scholar, 70–81.
11 Calame, C., ‘Sappho's Group: An Initiation into Womanhood’, Reading Sappho: Contemporary Approaches (ed. Greene, E.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 117Google Scholar discusses the possibility of a ‘school’ in which Sappho taught young women to compose and sing poetry. For philosophical and rhetorical perspectives on the education of girls, see Plato, Resp. 451c–461e; Leg. 7.804E; Musonius Rufus 3–4; Martial 10.35; Quintilian, Inst. 1.1.6–20; Cicero, Brut. 58.211.
12 This is essentially what the prophet at Delphi tells King Croesus when he confronts her about an ‘inaccurate’ oracle that led him to defeat on the battlefield: Herodotus, Hist. 1.91.
13 Drawing on Plato, Hippocrates and Galen, Martin, D. B., The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 139–53Google Scholar discusses ancient medical and philosophical views of body porosity. Female bodies were viewed as more porous than male bodies, which meant that they were more susceptible to pollution.
14 New Testament scholars often use this passage as proof of frenzy in the Delphic prophetic tradition. Plutarch's clear statement that this is not how the process usually unfolds should caution against such scholarly conclusions. See e.g. Conzelmann, H., Erster Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 276–80Google Scholar; Callan, T., ‘Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Roman Religion and in 1 Corinthians’, NovT 27 (1985) 125–40Google Scholar; Jantsch, T., ‘Die Frau soll Kontrolle über ihren Kopf ausüben (1Kor 11:10)’, Frauen, Männer, Engel: Perspektiven zu 1 Kor 11,2–16 (ed. Jantsch, T.; Göttingen: Neukirchener Theologie, 2015) 131–8Google Scholar.
15 Some of my analysis of 1 Corinthians here is from my Women Praying and Prophesying in Corinth, 175–6, 185–6, 220.
16 For possible meeting spaces, see Murphy-O'Connor, J., St. Paul's Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983 1)Google Scholar; Schowalter, D., ‘Seeking Shelter in Roman Corinth’, Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (ed. Friesen, S. J., Schowalter, D. N. and Walters, J. C.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 327–42Google Scholar; Weissenrieder, A., ‘Contested Spaces in 1 Corinthians 11:17–33 and 14:30: Sitting or Reclining in Ancient Houses, in Associations, and in the Space of ekklesia’, Contested Spaces: Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and the New Testament (ed. Balch, D. L. and Weissenrieder, A.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 59–108Google Scholar. Økland, J., Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Sanctuary Space (LNTS 269; London: T&T Clark, 2004)Google Scholar discusses these spaces in Corinth with reference to gender separation and hierarchy.
17 E.g. Baur, F. C., ‘Die Christus Partei in der Korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen Christentums in der alten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 5 (1831) 61–206Google Scholar; Hurd, J. C., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965)Google Scholar; Theissen, G., ‘Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums’, ZNW 65 (1974) 232–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Thiselton, A., ‘Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, NTS 24 (1978) 510–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nasrallah, L., An Ecstasy of Folly: Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity (HTS 52; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 2004)Google Scholar argued that Paul's focus on prophecy, madness and rationality in 1 Corinthians was part of emerging Christianity's disputes about knowledge and authority in the community.
19 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, brought women and gender issues to the forefront in her reconstruction of Corinthian self-understanding.
20 προσεύχομαι: 11.4, 5, 13; 14.13, 14 (× 2), 15 (× 2); προφητεύω: 11.4, 5; 13.9; 14.1, 3, 4, 5 (× 2), 24, 31, 39.
21 For various processes of evaluation and interpretation of prophecy, see Strabo, Geogr. 9.2.4; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 16.26.2–3 and 27.1; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.20.27; Plutarch, Def. orac. 438a–c.
22 See also Cicero, Div. 1.19.37–8.
23 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 3–34 argues that this gendered hierarchy is related to philosophical and medical concepts of the physiological inferiority of women.
24 Many early translations in place of ἐξουσία effectively read κάλυμμα, ‘covering’ or ‘veil’, which indicates the difficulty of the Greek phrase and early attempts to make sense of it within the argument of 1 Cor 11.2–16. See textual witnesses in NA28; Metzger, B., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 562Google Scholar; Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 223. This reading, essentially, understands ἐξουσία to mean ‘a symbol of someone else's authority’, but this passive use of ἐξουσία is not attested elsewhere. Moreover, the combination of ἐξουσία and the preposition ἐπί with the genitive is uncommon. See LSJ and BADG s.v. ἐξουσία; Arzt-Grabner, P. et al. , 1. Korinther: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, vol. ii (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006) 390Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by