However 11:16 states that they `appear to be contentious'. This may throw some light on what these men and wives were doing. Plutarch drew attention to `contentiousness and self-will that belong to vice', to the spirit of contentiousness and quarrelling over debatable questions, and to the fact that in learned discussions anger turns the love of learning into contentiousness.87 The Stoics said that the `new' Roman woman was contentiousness.
But it is also necessary for a woman to be self-controlled (o 4 pova). On the one hand she is free from lecherous recklessness, and on the other free concerning other pleasures, not a slave of desire, not contentious (nqb 4iX6vEu ov civai), not lavish in expense (if rrc,XuTEaf ), nor extravagant in dress (i? KaXXwrri6Yrptav).88
The exact same clause `to be contentious' (4tabvElKoc swat) is found in i Corinthians 11:16 with the implication that they deliberately did this.
The contentiousness of these women may well explain the use of the prefix KaTa being added to the verb to describe the strength of the action - that it was a deliberate one (11:2-16) and hence a choice over alternatives. It seems to indicate that they deliberately did this in front of the congregation to signal something or to make a statement.89
This description of the wives differs from that of the men because of the clause `having [the veil hanging] down from the head' (KaTa KE4al fls t?Xwv) (11:4). It was not over the head - if that had been the case then urrt?p with the genitive would have been used. Robinson cites examples in the New Testament where KaTa means `down from' and notes that in 11:4 the veil is hanging down from the head.90 This confirms what we know from the statue type of the Roman priest - that the toga was drawn over the head and hung down the back. The men were no less culpable than wives for they were drawing attention to the secular status by their action, copying a Roman convention of the emperor and the elite in a religious setting, as Gill has suggested.91
The married woman by deliberately removing her veil to pray and to prophesy was also making a statement. It did not mean that she was simply reacting against the actions of the Christian man who was imitating the custom of the imperial and elite in a religious context by pulling the toga over his head, so that by contrast she removed hers.
It was not that the Christian women had entered a home and were simply removing the veil because they were no longer in public. The term TKKXT1GIa meant a formal gathering regardless of the setting.92 This is reflected in the statement `they gather together in one place (0uvspXop6vwv ... Eir1 To auzb)' (i Cor. 11:20), so this could not be construed simply as a social visit to a home of a fellow Christian.93
By deliberately removing her veil while playing a significant role of praying and prophesying in the activities of Christian worship, the Christian wife was knowingly flouting the Roman legal convention that epitomised marriage. It would have been self-evident to the Corinthians that in so doing she was sending a particular signal to those gathered (11:13). It is also clear from the comments that, if she wished to appear as an adulterous married woman, she should bear the full consequences of the shame associated with that, i.e., have her hair cropped or shaved off (11:6). From the text it appears that she was not only indifferent to looking disreputable by first-century standards but, by deliberately removing the marriage veil, she was being contentious - as were the men in the Christian gathering (11:4, 16). If, according to Roman law, she was what she wore' or in this case what she removed from her head, then this gesture made a statement in support of the mores of some of her secular sisters, the new wives, who sought to ridicule the much-prized virtue of modesty which epitomised the married woman.
An ancient historian could not but be arrested by the fact that in i Timothy 2:9-15 the virtues of the modest wife are contrasted with those of women who lead an alternative lifestyle. These lifestyles were distinguished by identifiable dress `codes' in Roman law and society.
Likewise also [I wish] wives to dress themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and propriety (v KaTwiroXlj Kooµiw µsTa aiboos xai ow4po6Gvns xooµsiv ~auz&S), not with braided hair or gold or pearls or extravagant attire (l v rUyµarnv xai Xpuoiw ij µapyapizats i) iJaT6µw rroXuTEXET) but that which is proper for a wife who professes godliness through good works (&XX' o rrperrn yuvatCty rrayysXXoptvats Oso6fflstav, bi' fpywv &yaOwv) (i Tim. 2:9-10).
Traces of the mores of the `new' woman in the city of Ephesus in the Roman period can be detected both in what this passage proscribes and what it prescribes. Ando's important observation about the cultural ethos of this major city in Asia Minor, `Ephesian and Roman were no longer mutually exclusive categories',' is significant for this study. There was no substantial distinction between a major city of Asia Minor, Roman Corinth and Rome itself; such was the ready embracing of Romanisation.2
For such a short passage, i Timothy 2:9-15 has generated a disproportionate amount of literature among New Testament scholars in recent decades.3 In spite of the vast amount written, aspects of the passage still remain something of an enigma. This is due, in part, to the fact that there is no secure Sitz im Leben for these much traversed verses and that they still remain a text without any established social context.4 The clue to understanding the setting of the passage lies largely in understanding the contrasting comments about feminine adornment. It is proposed to examine (I) the significance of the dress codes (2:9-11); (II) the option of contraception, abortion or childbearing (2:15); and (III) submissiveness and learning v. teaching and controlling (2:11-12). This will show that the issue within the Pauline community related to the possible influence of the adornment of the `new' woman which had family and communal implications. (The Pythagorean letter of Melissa to Clearete also expressed a concern about the implications for the family. See pp. 72-73.)
In a letter to his mother about the virtues that made her who she was in comparison with others, Seneca wrote c. A.D. 41-49.
Unchastity, the greatest evil of our time, has never classed you with the great majority of women. Jewels have not moved you, nor pearls ... you have not been perverted by the imitation of worse kind of women that leads even the virtuous into pitfalls.... You have never blushed for the number of children, as if it mocked your age.... You never tried to conceal your pregnancy as though it was indecent, nor have you crushed the hope of children that were being nurtured in your body. You have never defiled your face with paints and cosmetics. Never have you fancied the kind of dress that exposed no greater nakedness by being removed. Your only ornament, the kind of beauty that time does not tarnish, is the great honour of modesty.5
Here Seneca compares the virtuous lifestyle of his mother with another set of competing female social mores prevalent not only in Rome in the late Republican period but also in the East by the time of the early Empire. This is confirmed by the extant evidence. His mother's virtues which he summarises so succinctly contrast sharply with the alternative lifestyle of the new Roman woman. He begins and ends with the dress codes epitomising the alternative lifestyles of married women. He also notes the social pressures on married women not to have children and, in particular, the pitfalls for the chaste wife because of the ease with which adultery had become a way of life.
In an era preoccupied with the beauty of the feminine form Seneca comments on the stigma felt by those who were pregnant. He graphically describes steps taken by others to prevent that happening. The excessive use of cosmetics also draws his censure as does the sexually provocative dress style of the `new' Roman woman, which he contrasts with `the great honour of modesty'. Some of the concerns reflected in i Timothy 2:9-io and 15 are similar to those of Seneca; in fact, there are striking parallels. Seneca also bears witness to the great social pressure that these new mores exerted on his mother and other modest wives in the time of Claudius.
First-century wives, both in statue types and literature, are recorded as having worn distinctive clothing requiring a considerable amount of fabric. It was intended to signal modesty that was the mark of the married woman. Zanker discusses what was understood by `respectable
apparel'. `Married women also had a special form of dress that was meant to reflect the new spirit of morality in Rome. This was the stola, a large, sleeveless overgarment with narrow shoulders, which probably carried woven strips indicating the matron's social status, as on the toga praetexta.... In the context of social legislation the stola became a symbol of female virtue and modesty. For the dignified matron, wearing a stola was not only an honor but a "protection from unwanted at- tentions".'6
In his defence of his `crime' committed in writing the poem, Ars amatoria, Ovid makes fun of the new spirit of morality represented by the stola. He refers to the garment `on the shoulder, believing that `that weight of the Roman name' (a possible reference to Augustus) would not divert `divine attention to silly trifles'.' It has already been noted that wives wore the marriage veil in public thereby differentiating themselves from others.'
McGinn has documented the immodest dresses, outlandish hairstyles, and lavish jewellery including gold and pearls which distinguished the hetairai from the modest wives in first-century society.' Croom believes that `There seems to be no evidence that prostitutes had to wear the toga, only that they were the only women who could."' However, Martial comments that a toga would be a more appropriate gift for a notorious adulteress than expensive scarlet and violet clothes." Horace contrasts the respectable matron with someone who wore the toga.12
Clothing which distinguished respectable married women from hetairai was not new in Roman society. Diodorus Siculus (c. 60-30 B.c.) repeated the legend that -
Saleucus had enacted a law at Locri that a woman was not to leave the city at night, unless she was going to commit adultery, nor to wear gold or purple unless she was a courtesan.13
Epigraphic evidence witnesses to the traditional differences between the two.
A courtesan describes her beauty, fine clothes and perfumes: her boast is `For all desire me, for I pleased them all' (TravTEs yap j' 7r6Oouv, fj uiv yap 7Taa1 7Tpoonvlic).14
By contrast a grave inscription reads, `She did not admire fine clothes, nor gold, when she lived!15
An inextricable link was made between dress codes and personal values with the term `adornment' being used as a descriptor of the modest wife. Writing in the early second century A.D., Epictetus drew a contrast with the respectable woman in terms of adornment.
As soon as they are fourteen, women are called `ladies' by men. And so when they see that they have nothing else but only to be the bedfellows of men, they begin to beautify themselves, and put all their hopes in that. It is worth while for us to take pains, therefore, to make them understand that they are honoured for nothing else but appearing decent and modest (err' oubtvl &XXw TJGivra1 i) Tw c6oiia1 4aivEoOw xai adbr povcs).16
Elsewhere he speaks of a wife's `modesty and a dignified deportment and gentleness' (aibw Kal KazaGToXf v xai 1 1Epbzgza).17
Plutarch corrected Herodotus' misunderstanding of the concept of modesty in a wife. He asserted -
Herodotus was not right in saying that a woman lays aside her modesty with her undergarments. On the contrary, a virtuous woman puts on modesty (aibw) in its stead, and husband and wife bring into their mutual relations the greater modesty as a token of the greatest love.18
The term `modesty' (aiM) (2:9), with its Latin equivalent pudor, was used in relation to those parts of the female body that must be covered in respectable Roman society. The dresses of prostitutes (and `new' Roman women who followed their lead) were at times so flimsy that Seneca observed in his letter to his mother that it was `the kind of dress that exposed no greater nakedness by being removed'.19 The call for modesty in this passage would have been well understood in the first century in the way it was expressed in terms of both `respectable apparel' and an `adornment' achieved by means of good deeds (2:10).20
1 Timothy 2:9 also requires the wife to adorn herself with that great Ro man feminine virtue of `chastity' or `self-control' that is often translated as `moderation' (Gw ponuvq), the Latin equivalent being prudentia. It was the cardinal virtue for women in the ancient world. Phintys, in a treatise "On Woman's Moderation"; wrote, `The virtue most appropriate to a woman is self-control (yvvatxos bs µaXtGTa &pETT oco4ponuvq)', because the author argued that it enabled her to love and honour her husband.21 This was the virtue that epitomised the discreet matron and was lauded on the tombstones of women.22 Attention has already been drawn to the fact that while the famous benefactor and orator, Herodes Atticus, possessed all the cardinal civic virtues, the sculptor of the statue erected to honour his wife in Corinth was said to have captured the cardinal female virtue.23
Marshall concludes that the two `phrases [`modesty' and `self-control'] thus express the discretion and decorum befitting the Christian woman which stands in contrast to the seductiveness and wealth displayed by the worldly woman'.24 The above evidence enables us to be even more specific in identifying the latter. It referred not just to any married woman in secular society, however wealthy, but to those married women who flouted the acknowledged expressions of the cardinal virtue that was meant to epitomise her gender, her status and her conduct.25
1 Timothy 2:15 specifically highlights the cardinal virtue of `self-control'. After the Christian virtues of `faith and love' comes `holiness' completing the trilogy. Then another phrase is specifically singled out - `with self-control' (PET x 6co4poc6vgc) (2:15). 1 Timothy 2:9 began with an emphasis on the modest adornment and restraint reflected in the dress code of the respectable Roman wife; the passage concludes with an instruction to continue to live `with self-control' (2:15) - the acknowledged virtue in first-century society in Rome and the East.
The excesses discussed in 2:9b related to the ancient Republican legislation known as sumptuary laws, viz. lex Fannia (161 B.c.) and lex Licinia sumptuaria (143 B.c.) which replaced the former. Valerius Maximus recorded the speech made at the beginning of the first century B.C. by Duronius who challenged this law. He wanted the Senate to -
revoke the law passed to limit money spent on banquets.... A bridle has been laid upon you, citizens, quite intolerable. You have been bound and tied with a galling chain of slavery. A law has been passed commanding you to be frugal. Let us then revoke the regulation, overlaid as it is with the rust of rugged antiquity. For indeed, what use is liberty if we are not allowed to go to perdition with luxury as we want to?'26
Augustus also sought to curb excessive expenditure on banquets, clothes and jewellery with the revival of the sumptuary laws. They had to do, in part, with the avoidance of ostentation.21 Plutarch warns the husband in the traditional speech at the marriage bed about possible confrontations with a wife over any excessive spending habits.
When their husbands try forcibly to remove their luxury and extravagance they keep up a continual fight and are very cross; but if they are convinced with the help of reason, they peaceably put aside these things and practice moderation .21
Valerius Maximus, writing in the time of Tiberius, commented that while the ancient Romans forbade their wives to drink wine (see pp. 152-54) they had permitted them the indulgence of gold, purple and the dyeing of their hair. They permitted this so that the `self-control' (pudicitia) of their wives should not look too austere.29 However, by his day these indulgences had become the marks of excess, although he suggested that `a woman's only joy and glory was in her dress and ornaments that were called mundus muliebris. This contrasted with men who could have insignias and public distinctions .130
Statue types displayed the simple hairstyles which epitomised the modest wife and were worn by members of the imperial family. These statues were replicated throughout the Empire and represented `fashion icons' to be copied by modest married women.31 Juvenal confirms this when he asks, `What woman will not follow when an empress leads the way?'32 It is for this reason that, in the statue found in a terraced house, Livia, the wife of Augustus, has her head uncovered so that her hairstyle could be seen and, presumably, copied.31
Susan Woods also noted, `Works of the visual arts would show her [a
married woman] how they [imperial wives] dressed and how they wore their hair.'34 Their hairstyles were recorded on Roman coins in order to promote a standard image of the modest wife. It was also true that not everyone copied these simple hairstyles. Groom notes that, in contrast, `Many of the hairstyles are very complex and would only have been for the rich and leisured classes: 35 Juvenal comments on the incredibly lavish nature of some of the hairstyles -'So important is the business of beautification; so numerous are the tiers and storeys piled one upon another on her head!'36
Juvenal identified the shameful woman by means of her jewellery.
There is nothing that a woman will not permit herself to do, nothing that she deems shameful, when she encircles her neck with green emeralds, and fastens huge pearls to her elongated ears ....37
Jewellery was made from a variety of metals but, because it was seen as the preferred and most expensive metal, gold was another indicator of extravagant adornment (i Tim. 2:9).38 Trimalchio pointed out to his assembled guests at a dinner the gold jewellery (and its weight) which his wife was wearing. He then proceeded to confirm his claim by weighing it in their presence. While his actions would have reflected badly on his sense of propriety, they do, however, indicate desirability in terms of female adornment.39 Juvenal observed `secrets bestow jewels' (donant arcana cylindros) where it is recorded that a husband paid his wife with jewellery to keep her quiet about his homosexual affair.40
Roman Wives, Roman Widows Page 11