^{page 326 note 2} ‘Levirate Marriage in St Paul’, N.T.S. x (04 1964), 361–5.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 3} In this essay I use ‘virginity’ in the ascetical sense of virginitas intacta. ‘Continence’ is contrasted with ‘virginity’ and denotes both abstinence from successive polygamy (that is, taking a second partner after the death of the first) and abstinence within the marriage bond.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 4} I have been unable to make statistics for each patristic work owing to the absence of texts in East Africa but the table (pp. 346 ff.) shows the increasing ascetic fervour in the Church.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 5} Text, P.G. viii–ix. The title of the work is ΠερΙ ΕγκραΤεΙας (De Continentia). The word παρθένος and its cognates do not seem to occur but in its place ενοũχος and its cognates are used. Linguistically and theologically St Clement does not appear to consider continence a decision made on the part of the woman (vide infra, Origen, p. 330, and my conclusion, pp. 345 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} Cf. ‘Levirate Marriage in St Paul’, N.T.S. x, p. 361, lines 22–6. Hereafter this article will be referred to as L.M.P.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} The Marcionites' hatred of marriage arose from their abhorrence of the Creator God but the Gnostic ideas were more esoteric and ascetic.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 3} The general theme of this section of the article should be compared with ‘All things to all men’, (I Cor. ix. 22) by Chadwick, H., N.T.S. I (May 1955), 261–75, esp. 263–70 and the references there given.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 4} Cf. L.M.P. p. 362, para. 1. It would seem that St Clement may regard ‘συγγνώμη’ (I Cor. vii. 6) as concession to abstain. Cf. the Jewish teaching on permission to abstain; men were allowed longer and shorter periods of abstinence depending on their occupation (T.B. Ket. pp. 369 ff., T.B. trans, ed. I. Epstein, Soncino Press, London, 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} Vide infra, p. 343, where the same difficulty has arisen in the translation but not in the original text of St Methodius.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 2} Cf. L.M.P. p. 364. Liddell and Scott comment that this word is peculiar to St Clement of Alexandria.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 1} c 6, col. 1156. See also the notes in the Migne text.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 2} He does not state that this was Philip the Evangelist but it seems likely that he is referring to Acts xxi. 9 (contrast the daughters of Nicolaus, c 4), Strom. III c 4. I have given more attention to the sense of virgin in this text of Acts xxi. 9 and in other contexts in an article ‘The Meaning of Virgin’ (forthcoming, N.T.S.). In L. M. P. I omitted the important definition of ‘virgin’ given in Niddah i. 4: ‘Who is accounted a ‘bethulah’? She that has never yet suffered a flow, even though she was married.’ To the Jew, therefore, ‘’ could be used of a woman who was married (see L.M.P. p. 363, cf. Eusebius, E.H. III, 31; III, 39).Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 3} c 6, col. 1157.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 4} I confine myself to an examination of Origen's exegesis of I Cor. vii and use the text provided by Claude Jenkins, ‘Origen on I Corinthians’, J.T.S. ix (1907–1908), 500 ff. All references to J.T.S. are to this text. A more detailed examination of Origen's teaching on continence and virginity will be found in Henri Crouzel, Virginité et mariage selon Origéne, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1962.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 5} Cf. L.M.P. p. 362, and also contrast St Athanasius' view ref. Fragmentum in Epistolam I Ad Corinthios (33), P.G. xxvn, 1403–1404, Πρòς άθροδαíτους καϕοσGoogle Scholar

^{page 329 note 6} Cf. L.M.P. p. 362, and Chadwick, H., op. cit. p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 7} Op. cit. p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 1} Crouzel, , op. cit. pp. 58 f.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 2} Cf. Joyce, G. H., S.J., Christian Marriage (London, 1933), p. 581. Father Joyce quotes Origen's assertion that digamists are not crowned but this perhaps refers to not wearing the crown at the liturgical service of marriage, not to crowns in heaven. Cf. also J.T.S. IX, 505, lines 57–71.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 3} Cf. Crouzel, , op. cit. pp. 25, 26, where he observes another masculine gender.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 4} I should hesitate to translate ‘άγάμων’ by ‘célibataires’ as Crouzel, , op. cit. p. 85, trans. J.T.S. p. 506, 1 b.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} J.T.S. p. 503; p. 507, line 39.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 2} It has been observed that ‘άγαμος’ and its cognates appear to be used in the senseof one separated from his wife (usually by the death of the spouse). In this connexion it is interesting to see that Origen is perplexed over the reading ‘κάί ή γυνή ή άγαμος κάί ή πάρθένος ή άγαμος’ in I Cor. vii. 34. Pére Crouzel (op. cit. p. 104) expresses Origen's belief that true Christian virginity must be embraced solely for the service of God, not merely because one has not found a spouse. He continues, ‘Un fragment des Stromates origéniens, conservé dans la marge d'un manuscrit de l'Épître aux Romains (Texte und Untersuchungen, XVII, 4, 1899, no. 78, p. 64), l'exprime en essayant de trouver un sens valable à une leçon impossible de I Cor. vii. 34. Ainsi dans le quatriéme livre des Stromates [Origéne] rapportant cette leçon, l'explique en ces termes. “L'addition de ‘ή άγαμος à πάρθένος ή άγαμος’ paraît superflue. Cependant les exemplaires les plus exacts écrivent: κάί ή γυνή ή άγαμος κάί ή πάρθένος ή άγαμος. Voici ce qu'il faut dire: on ne peut appelerfemme non marine celle qui veut se marier, même si dans le présent ellesemble non mariée; ni vierge non mariée celle qui se marier et est soumise à des sollicitations de ce genre. C'est pourquoi il n'est pas inutile d'écrire: La femme non mariée et la vierge non mariée se préoccupent de ce qui concerne le Seigneur.” Quoi qu'il en soit de ce texte invraisemblable, trouvé dans “les exemplaires les plus exacts”, l'explication est conforme aux intentions de l'Apôtre (p. 105). Se consacrant au Seigneur, la vierge ou la veuve assume volontairement sa virginité ou son état de veuve: elle a rejeté toute idée de mariage et a offert à Dieu sa chasteté comme un don irrévocable.’ Origen is certainly right that this reading is by far the best attested, even given by P⁴⁶. The adjective ‘άγαμος’ qualifying ‘πάρθένος’ may well have been omitted because it appeared a contradiction in terms but to the Jew the combination was certainly legitimate as is seen in Niddah i. 4 (see n. 2, p. 329). The word ‘πάρθένος’ to Origen meant virgo intacta, to the Jew it also denotes a minor, therefore the verse means, ‘a widowed woman and a widowed minor’ or ‘both old and young widows care for the things of the Lord’.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 3} I apologize for some digressions in this section on Tertullian but it is necessary to give some attention to the background of Tertullian before his peculiar exegesis of I Cor. vii can be fully understood.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 4} Monceaux, P., ‘La colonie juive dans l'Afrique’, Rev. d'études Juives (1902).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 5} J.T.S., new series (1961), XII, 280–4.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 1} Enoch c 7 and 8 (ed. Charles, R. H., Pseudepigraphal Works, 1913, cf. De Cultu Fern. 1, 2).Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} Enoch 6, Charles, , op. cit. II, 127 ff., 573.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 3} I accept the following dates for Tertullian's works on chastity: Ad Uxorem, a.d. 200–6; Exhortatio Castitatis, before a.d. 207; De Virginibus Velandis, before a.d. 207; De Monogamia, c. a.d. 217; De Pudicitia, a.d. 212/13 or 217.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 4} See Hebrew Ethical Wills, by Abrahams, Israel (Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 5708, a.d. 1949) and also the one-volume Jewish Encyclopaedia edited by Roth, C. (1959), under ‘Wills’.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 5} Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1909), II, 241, cf. also Daube, D., The N. T. and Rabbinic Judaism (1959), P. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 6} See p. 335, n. 10, below on the acquaintance of Tertullian with Rabbinic exegesis and the literal sense of each word in Scripture.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 1} Translation from Tertullian's Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage, Le Saint, William P., Ancient Christian Writers, XIII (London, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Daube, , op. cit. p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} Text, Corpus Christianorum, 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Op. cit. p. 116, n. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 5} Cf. Ginzberg, , Legends of the Jews, III, 260 (on Osee and Yahweh).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 6} See Roth, Cecil, The Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia (1959), under ‘Monogamy’.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 7} Vide infra, p. 335, n. 10, on the principle of exegesis in Tertullian and the principle ‘Negat scriptura quod non notat’ etc.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 8} Charles, , op. cit. p. 131, and also Ginzberg, op. cit. I (Noë's marriage with Naamah at the bidding of the Lord) and v, n. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 1} Ginzberg, , op. cit. I, 164.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 2} See also Cohen, A., Everyman's Talmud, pp. 236–7 (Erub. 100b) (London, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 3} The Midrash does not comment on Num. xii. Rashi explains that Moses' wife had two different names.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 4} J.E. p. 48, cf. also Ginzberg, op. cit. II, under ‘Moses as King of Ethiopia’. He married the daughter of the King of Ethiopia but did not consummate the marriage remembering that Abraham and Isaac forbade their sons to take Canaanite wives.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 5} J.E. III, 224. See also Ginzberg (op. cit. II, 316) where the removal of Moses' shoes is interpreted as his abstinence from earthly things, even from conjugal life. The passage continues, ‘Thereupon the angel Michael spoke to God: “O Lord of the World, can it be Thy purpose to destroy mankind? Blessings prevail only if male and female are united, and yet Thou biddest Moses separate from his wife.” God answered saying, “Moses has begot children, he has done his duty towards the world. I desire him to unite himself now with the Shekinah that she may descend upon the earth for his sake.”’ Cf. also III, 255, where Miriam and Aaron complain that Moses abstains from coitus through pride.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 6} Shab. 87a, Pes. 87b, Aboth R.N. 2. The basic scripture text is Exod. xix. 15; Deut. v. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 7} See J.E. v, 224 ff. and cf. Enoch 83, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} Ps. Clem. Ep. I c 6.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 2} Cf. Ginzberg, , op. cit. IV, 316, n. 2, where it is stated that Elias never married and therefore nothing is said in Scripture concerning his family. Elias is especially thought of in his role of judging the purity of families when the Messias comes, but this is not ‘purity’ in the ascetic sense but refers to those families which have not intermarried with foreign peoples (cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. p. 233).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} J.E. p. 122. He is often thought of as Metatron.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 4} Jub. 15, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 5} J.E. p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 6} J.E. IV, 93.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 7} See Aboth, ed. Schechter, p. 153; Sotah 12a.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 8} Judith is produced as an example of a monogamous woman (De Mon. 17, I); this is fully in the Jewish tradition (Judith viii). It is surprising that Enoch is not mentioned.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 9} Ad Ux. I c 6; Exhort. Cast, c 13.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 10} I append this note with some hesitation as I have been unable to study Rabbinic exegesis in any detail but I feel that the following suggestion is perhaps worth some consideration. Perhaps the most arresting trait in Tertullian's later works is his strange form of argument; Pere Le Saint, William P. (Tertullian, Treatises on Penance, A.C.W., London, 1959, p. 7) comments, ‘His whole habit of thought and manner of expression, even his method of argumentation, are utterly foreign and strange to us…’. Indeed Tertullian's style of exegesis does not harmonize, as in his earlier works, with his Alexandrian predecessors, neither does it present the straight logic of the Roman lawyer, yet it is consistent, systematic and very subtle. Could we find the explanation of this enigma in Tertullian's growing acquaintance with Rabbinic exegesis and his use of this method even though he may not have fully understood the difference between halaka and haggada? Dr Frend (op. cit.) comments, ‘It has also been recognized that the ethical code imposed by the rigorist element in the African Church bore a striking resemblance to the Jewish halaka of the day. Detailed comparisons can be made between Tertullian's prescriptions for avoiding contact with pagan society, contained in the De Idolalria, and those to be found in the Jewish Aboda Zara of the same date.’Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 1} ‘Affinités Littéraires et Doctrinales du Manuel de Discipline’, Revue Biblique, LIX (1952), 219 ff. and in a later number, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Their interest in the prophets is considerable when one contrasts the meagre references in Jewish writers, such as Philo and Josephus.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 2} See De Pud. (a Montanist document), A.C. W. XXVIII (Le Saint, W. P., S.J., Tertullian, Treatises on Penance, pp. 59f.), and compare the lists of ‘sins’ and consequent penalties in the Manual of Discipline, VI, 23–VII, 5 (Gaster, Theodor H., The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Scrolls, London, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} E.H. v. 16, 12–16.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 4} Le Saint, , op. cit. (Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage), p. 158, n. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 5} Unfortunately Pére Le Saint does not give the precise reference.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 6} Rabin, Chaim, The Zadokite Documents, edited and translated by Rabin, Chaim, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1958), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} See jastrow, Dictionary T.B. and its cognates., chief of the Great Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem and its successors. See also above, p. 335, n. 10, and further Dr Frend, op. cit. p. 282:‘…the “sacerdotalism” of the African bishop has long been attributed to an Old Testament attitude towards priesthood, which would account for the bishop (or priest) being regarded as subject to the same taboos of purity as the Levite’.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 2} See p. 335, n. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Rabin, , op. cit. pp. 16, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Op. cit. p. 17, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} Yeb. c 2, p. 94 ff. (Soncino translation) should be compared with Tertullian's arguments against remarriage ‘because we are all brethren’, which reflect the biblical quotations cited in Yeb. c 2. Cf. also Athenagoras, Suppl. 33, where successive polygamy is called ‘cloaked adultery’ and Hermas, Mand. 4, 4, who dissents from this type of opinion. For a fuller discussion see Joyce, op. cit. pp. 584–600.Google ScholarIt would seem, therefore, that Jewish Christianity lived on for some time in Montanism. The influence comes from Qumran, through Jewish Christianity and the pseudo-Clementine type of literature to Montanism (see the diagram, p. 116, A Guide to the Scrolls, Leaney, A. R. C., Posen, J., and Hanson, R. P. C., London, 1958); to the vertical line I should add ‘Montanism’.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 3} This appears to be the main reason behind Tertullian's argument but one must still remember Tertullian's idea of the lasting contract of marriage even after death (Exhort. Cast. II). Compare the frequent Jewish expressions of grief on the death of a first wife, Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., A Rabbinic Anthology (first publ. 1938), pp. 509, 511 (Git. 90b and San. 22a).Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 4} This is not dissimilar to the principle whereby a godparent may not marry his or her godchild because of the spiritual affinity contracted.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 5} Cf. Daube, D., op. cit. on I Cor. V. I and also Acts xv. 20 and L.M.P. p. 364, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 6} The great controversy preceding the edict of ‘Callistus’ concerning second marriage and the dissenting views of Hippolytus (A.N.F. VI, 342); Justin Martyr, Apol. c 15, ‘So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners’, etc., all centre on the view that a tertia concarnatio is formed.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} Le Saint, , op. cit.; De Pud. p. 262, n. 485.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 1} It would be interesting to know whether they quoted I Cor. vii in their argument.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Cf. Origen who does not regard non-Christian alliance as true marriage (Crouzel, , op. cit. p. 145).Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} The earliest fragments of prayers name widows before virgins but there is a change of order during the third century.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} Texts, P.G. XVIII, 27–220 and also A.C.W. XXVII, St Methodius, The Symposium, trans, and annotated by Musurillo, Herbert (London, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 3} De Man. II, 6, 7 (trans. Le Saint, , op. cit. Treatise on Marriage and Remarriage). This is the same as Origen, vide supra, p. 329, but different from St Athanasius, see p. 329, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 4} Not using the authority of B and G but including the definite article in v. 28; this is omitted in Father Musurillo's translation, cf. L.M.P. p. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Text, Corona Patrum Salesiana, vol. VI, Sant'Ambrogio, Scritti sulla verginità, testo, versione e note di Salvati, M. (Torino, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} See Dudden, F. H., The Life and Times of St Ambrose, 2 vols. (1935).Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 1} But the argument from the Hebrew is not tenable as both and denote the age of the woman, not whether she is married or not (see p. 329, n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 2} Cf. Origen (Crouzel, , op. cit. p. 107).Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 1} See Mishna, Nedarim, ii. I, 2; Nazir ix. I, but contrast Niddah v.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} Viteau, Compare J., ‘L'institution des diacres et des veuves’, in R.H.E. XXII (1926), 513–37.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 3} Dr Crehan, J., S.J., has pointed out to me that until the time of Callistus there was uncertainty about the concept of person, but that he seems to have said something about it which provoked the wrath of Hippolytus. The two references are both in the Refutatio haeresium of Hippolytus 9, 12, 19 = G.C.S. XXVI, 249 and 10, 26, 3 = G.C.S.XXVI, 283. From these it appears that Callistus ‘was unwilling to say that the Father had suffered and was one Person (with the Son)’ and that God was ‘one Person, divided indeed in name but not in substance’. These two charges do not make complete sense, but if we think of Callistus groping for a distinction between person and substance, that will probably be near the truth. In Origen's Dialektos there is another bishop at about the same time doing exactly that, but in his case the word used is dynamis. I myself have applied this groping for the full concept of ‘person’ to the theory and practice of celibacy.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 4} The reign of Constantine, Cod. Theod. viii. 16, 1 of 31 03 320.Google Scholar