JBL 102/3 (1983) 429-439

1 COR 7:32-35 AND STOIC DEBATES ABOUT MARRIAGE, ANXIETY, AND DISTRACTION* DAVID L. BALCH Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129

Paul tells the Corinthians that he wants them to be free from anxi­ eties (αμέριμνοι) in 1 Cor 7:32, and that he wants them to be devoted to the Lord in an undistracted manner (άπερισπάστω?) in 7:35. This paper will focus on the occurrence of these two terms in Stoic discussions of whether the wise man should marry; thus the paper is a contribution to the debate whether indeed Stoic ideas are reflected in Paul's discussion. Second, the Stoic texts which use these terms state the theory that, in some ways, husband and wife might be each other's equal, so the latter part of the paper will reflect on whether this affects the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7. The debate about the Stoic connections of these ideas is most sharply focused by Johannes Weiss1 and Herbert Braun2 on the one hand and Wolfgang Schräge3 on the other. Commenting on the adverb "undis­ tracted" (ατΐξρισττάστως), Weiss asserts: "Here we have an exact Stoic- Cynic parallel to the views of Paul." (My translation.) Schräge, on the other hand, wonders how one can use Cynic-Stoic parallels to clarify Paul's exhortations when they have a clear eschatological basis.4 Schräge calls these parallels "illusory"5 and says:

The attempt to understand 1 Cor 7:29-31 in light of Cynic-Stoic parallels breaks down, among other reasons, because of the unbreakable connection for Paul between the supposedly Stoic

This research was funded by a 1981 NEH Summer Stipend, for which I am grateful. 1 J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970, orig. pub. 1910) 205 n. 2. 2 H. Braun, "Die Indifferenz gegenüber der Welt bei Paulus und bei Epiktet," Gesam­ melte Studien zum neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen; Mohr [Paul Sie­ beck], 1962) 159-67. 3 W. Schräge, "Die Stellung zur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik. Ein Beitrag zu 1 Kor 7.29-31," ZThK 61 (1964) 125-54. 4 Schräge, "Die Stellung," 132. In contrast, note the analysis of Nils Dahl, "Christ, Crea­ tion and the Church," Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976) 120-40, at p. 137. 5 Ibid., 138. 430 Journal of Biblical Literature

attitude to the world and his clearly eschatological motivation, while for Epictetus, a belief in immanent reason means that all remains within the boundaries of this present life and world cycle 6 (my translation) As an alternative source, Schräge cites the apocalyptic text 6 Ezra 16 40- 45 (or 35-45) Conzelmann counters with the simple question, "But why should Stoic influence be excluded by this late text?"7 In this paper I will not dwell on the debates about this possibly third-century AD apoca­ lypse or its possible/probable Christian origin Schräge argues in too rationalistic a manner about social influences, whether these are from Jewish apocalyptic or from Stoic ethics He observes that certain "conse­ quences" correspond to or follow from Paul's apocalyptic world view,8 and one of these consequences is that Christians should live "as though" (¿s μη) they have no dealings with the world which is passing away (1 Cor 7 31) Schräge ignores the social attraction and pressure which Hellenistic culture would have asserted on the small, newly formed Christian group at Corinth and writes as if Paul and the Corinthians were involved in perfecting syllogisms I suggest rather that Paul accept­ ed and used certain Stoic values, which were indeed in logical tension with other values he held,9 but which were useful in his debate with the Corinthian ascetics Discussing the adverb "undistracted," Weiss points especially to Epictetus, Dis 3 22 69 10 In a city of wise persons, the Cynic might marry one like himself (3 22 63) and have children But in such an order of things as the present, which is like that of a battle-field, it is a question, perhaps, if the Cynic ought not to be free from distraction (άττβρίστταστον), wholly devoted to the service of God, free to go about among men, not tied down by the private duties of men, nor involved in relationships which he cannot violate and still maintain his role as a good and excellent man, whereas on the other hand, if he observes them, he will destroy the messenger, the scout, the herald of the gods, that he is For see, he must show certain services to his father-in-law, to the rest of his wife's relatives, to his wife herself, finally, he is driven from his profession, to act as a nurse in his own family

6 Ibid , 137-38 In ' Zur Frontstellung der paulinischen Ehebewertung in 1 Kor 7 1-7," ZNW 67 (1976) 214-34, at pp 223-24, Schräge modifies this and accepts a certain rela­ tionship between Cynic-Stoic attitudes and Paul's terminology in 1 Cor 6 12 and 7 35 However this second article (p 224 η 40) affirms the reservations expressed in the first one 7 Η Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia, Philadelphia Fortress, 1975) 133 η 26 8 Schräge, Die Stellung,' 132 9 Braun, Die Indifferenz,' 166, eg Paul says he has 'anxiety for all the churches" (2 Cor 1128) 10 Cited first by Weiss (above η 1) then in the commentaries of Kummel and Barrett, and in Bauer s Lexicon revised by Danker, s ν Balch 1 Cor 7 32-35 and Stoic Debates 431

and to provide for them To make a long story short, he must get a kettle to heat water for the baby, for washing it in a bathtub, wool for his wife when she has a child, oil, a cot, a cup (the ves­ sels get more and more numerous), not to speak of the rest of his business, and his distraction (ττ€ρι.σττασμόν) Where, I beseech you is left now our king, the man who has leisure for the public interest? (3 22 69-72, translation from Oldfather m LCL)

Weiss gives other references in Epictetus and argues that the term "undistracted" is a technical one m late Stoicism (Epictetus, Dis 2 21 22, 1 29 59) Weiss also refers to a second Stoic, Hierocles, who discusses the same subject using the same term Hierocles agrees with Epictetus that, under certain circumstances, marriage can be avoided,11 but then he proceeds to argue that one should marry because it is natural, advanta­ geous and beautiful

Further still, besides the procreation of children, the association with a wife is advantageous, for in the first place, when we are weaned with labours out of the house, she receives us with offi­ cious kindness and recreates us by every possible attention In the next place, she produces in us an oblivion of our molestations For those sorrowful circumstances of life which take place in the forum, or the gymnasium, or the country, and, in short, all the cares (μέριμνας) and solicitudes occasioned by converse with our friends and familiars, do not so obviously molest us, being ob­ scured by our necessary occupations (ττ€ρισττασμοί9), but when we are liberated from these, return home, and our mind be­ comes, as it were, at leisure, then these cares and solicitudes approach, availing themselves of this occasion, in order to tor­ ment us, at the time when life is destitute of benevolence, and is solitary Then however, the wife being present becomes a great solace on this occasion, by making some inquiries about external affairs or by referring to, and considering together with her husband, something about domestic concerns and thus, by her unfeigned cheerful eagerness, affords him a certain exuberance of

1 ! Hierocles Concerning Marriage in Stobaeus 4 22 22 4 502 9-14 Hense See Κ Praechter Hierokles der Stoiker (Leipzig 1901) 5 and 69 which has been included in Karl Praechter Kleine Schriften hrsg Heinrich Dorne (Collectanea 7 New York Georg Olms 1973) Dorne s fascinating Nachbemerkung (ρ 468 see also ρ χι) notes that por tions of Hierocles were discovered in 1906 on a papyrus which was a section of a popular Stoic handbook intended for a wide audience I will cite Stobaeus by book chapter and excerpt number and then give volume pages and lines in the edition of C Wachsmuth and O Hense Anthologium (Berlin Weidmann 1958) 5 vols Otto Hense Ioannes Stobaios PW 9 (1916) 2559 argues that the Stobaean chapter titles (e g concerning marriage ) present us with generally known topoi used for centuries in ethics and popular philosophy Stoics supported marriage against Epicureans who opposed it except under special circumstances (see Diogenes Laertius 10 119) and against Theophrastus On Marriage (quoted by Jerome Against Jovmianus I 47) 432 Journal of Biblical Literature

pleasure and delight (Hierocles, "Concerning Marriage," in Sto­ baeus 4 22 24, 4 504, 1-16 Hense, translation from Taylor)12 It has not been noticed that the term "undistracted" also occurs in a third Stoic discussion of the topos "concerning marriage "13 This is a discussion by Antipater of Tarsus, head of the Stoic school c 130 Β C (or Antipater of Tyre, from the first century BC), and his discussion was an influential one 14 Arguing against those who think marriage a burden which re­ duces personal freedom, he says But for a male who loves the good and wishes to lead a life of leisure devoted to reason or to political deeds or both, the matter is just the same (rcXeiW αμ^τάθ^τον) The more he is turned away from household management, the more he must take a wife to do the housekeeping for him and make himself free from distraction (eavrov αττ^ρίσπαστον) about daily necessities (256, 33-257,3 von Arnim, an excerpt in Stobaeus 4 22 25, 4 511,15- 512,1 Hense, my translation) According to the later popular philosophical handbook of Stobaeus (Anthologium IV 22), the Stoic topos "concerning marriage," treated by Antipater, Epictetus and Hierocles in the above quotations, has three possible conclusions "marriage is best" (on κάλλιστου15 ó γάμος, 4 494,2 Hense), "marriage is not good" (οτι ουκ αγαθόν το γαμζϊν, 4 513,2 Hense), or "the paired style of life makes marriage helpful for some but not advantageous for others" (on rots μ\ν ¿πωφζλη τον γάμον, τοις be ασύμφορον1^ ο των συναπτομένων απ€Τ€λ€σ€ τρόπος, 4 524,2-3 Hense) Stobaeus excerpts Antipater in his section illustrating the first conclusion, "that marriage is best " Antipater wishes to make no exceptions Whether a male wishes to lead a life of leisure or of political activity, "the matter is just the same", he should marry This is also clear in the lines which follow He gives two quotations from an unknown comic poet which support his conclusion that a male should marry a wife in order to keep

12 Trans Thomas Taylor, Political Fragments of Archytas, Charondas, Zaleucus and Other Ancient Pythagoreans preserved by Stobaeus and also Ethical Fragments of Hierocles (London C Whittmgham, 1822) 13 The text is in von Arnim, SVF 3 254,23-257,10 14 Κ Gaiser, Fur und wider die Ehe (Munich Heimeran, 1974) 72 See E Eyben, "De latere Stoa over het Huwehjk," Hermeneus 50 (1978) 15-32, 71-94, 337-59, with a remark by C Ν D Hardewijk (p 126), a response by the author (p 381), and a note by C Cuypers (p 382) Also O Hense, ' Zu Antipater von Tarsos,' Rheinisches Museum 73 (1924) 290-305, and A J Voelke, Les rapports avec autrui dans la philosophie grecque d Aristote à Panétius (Pans J Vnn, 1961) 149-52 For a rhetorical parallel to the follow­ ing quotation, see Praechter, Hierocles, 76 15 Cp the use of καλόν in the Corinthians' negative formula quoted by Paul m 1 Cor 7 1b 16 This term (here negative) is the one used by Paul m 1 Cor 7 35 and by Hierocles in the quotation above (there translated "advantageous' ) Balch: 1 Cor 7:32-35 and Stoic Debates 433 himself from the distractions of household management (οίκονομέίν). The comic poet does not epitomize badly [in the verses]: He is learned. To marry I think is necessary for the one whose pursuit demands zeal (τον ίττιμελή) and who is able to manage (οίκονομέΐν) a great crowd. The response: Rather the negligent man (τον αμελή) [should marry], the one desiring learned discussion; so having a house-steward (οίκο- νόμον), he may take his walks without fear. (257,4-10 von Arnim; 4.512,1-7 Hense; my translation) Antipater demands marriage, whether the male is carelessly negligent or zealously involved. In either case, the state needs male children to honor the city gods and staff the army, not to do household chores. The other three Stoics being discussed are not so one-sided. Stobaeus (4.22.10; 4.530,21-531,28 Hense) gives an excerpt of Musonius, (frag. 13A) "What is the Chief End of Marriage?"17 as an illustration of his third possible conclusion. Musonius discusses acts and attitudes which are "enough for the relation between husband and wife" (Ικανον τω γαμουντι; 4.531,6 Hense; 88,15 Lutz). Certain attitudes are "necessary for marriage" (ôeî ôe èv γάμω; 531,8 Hense; 88,17 Lutz). But where each looks only to his own interests and neglects the other (αμελών θατερον)}^ or what is worse, when one is so minded and lives in the same house but fixes his attention elsewhere (TJJ Ò€ γνώμτ] βλέπει έ'£ω) and is not willing to pull together with his yoke­ mate nor to agree, then the union is doomed to disaster and though they live together, yet their common interests fare badly; eventually they separate entirely or they remain together and suffer what is worse than loneliness. (531,16-23 Hense; 88,24-29 Lutz; translation from Lutz) Musonius disagrees with Antipater: marriage is not fitting for every male citizen. To paraphrase Stobaeus's rubric: marriage is "helpful for some (men and women), not advantageous (rather disastrous) for others."

17 Trans. C. Lutz, Musonius Ruf us. The Roman Socrates (Yale Classical Studies 10; New Haven: Yale University, 1947). Stobaeus (4.22.20; 4.497,19-501,29 Hense) places his excerpt of Musonius, "Is Marriage a Handicap for the Pursuit of Philosophy?" (frag. 14) in his section illustrating the first possible conclusion, that marriage is best. However the fact that Stobaeus places Musonius, frag. 13A in his third section means that Praechter, Hierocles 5, n. 1 is incorrect when he asserts that Musonius always thinks marriage appro­ priate, and distinguishes him in this from Hierocles, who knows some circumstances where marriage is not advantageous. (In the citation above and those which follow, I refer to Hense's edition of Stobaeus, not to his edition of Musonius.) 18 Musonius here disagrees with the comic poet quoted favorably by Antipater. Rather, "One should concern himself (Ιτημελάσθαι) with marriage and having children" (frag. 14; 501,23-24 Hense; 96,3 Lutz). 434 Journal of Biblical Literature

Epictetus too thinks marriage a duty (Dis 3 7 19,25,26) which might however be avoided by the Cynic under certain circumstances (Dis 3 22 67-82), namely when he chooses to be free from distractions so that, as a physician of morals, he might oversee the ethics of other men and women, including their marriage relationships (Dis 3 22 72) 19 Again, as Stobaeus phrases it, marriage is helpful for some men, not advantageous for others Stobaeus places his excerpts of Hierocles, "Concerning Marriage," in his first section (4 22 21-24, 4 502,1-505,27), and Hierocles' first word is indeed that marriage is "most necessary" (αναγκαιότατος, 502,2 Hense) 20 Nevertheless, like Musonius and Epictetus, Hierocles knows exceptions "A single life is not to be chosen, except when particular circumstances (κατά ττερίστασιν) require it" (502,11 Hense) Marriage is a duty (καθήκον), unless some circumstance (ττζρίστασις) occurs to pre­ vent it from taking place (502,14 Hense) "Everyone who voluntarily, and without some prohibiting circumstance (π^ριστάσις), avoids mar­ riage and the procreation of children, accuses his parents of madness" (Hierocles, "On Numerous Offspring," in Stobaeus 4 24 14, 4 604,9-11 Hense) 21 Hierocles, unlike Musonius and Epictetus, does not define these circumstances Despite the fact that Stobaeus uses excerpts of Hierocles to illustrate the first possible conclusion that marriage is best, and despite the fact that four pages of Greek text argue that marriage is necessary, natural, advantageous and beautiful, because of the three texts cited above, Hierocles' final opinion actually belongs in Stobaeus's third category marriage is helpful for some (the majority) but not advanta­ geous for others * In partial summary, Antipater, Epictetus, Hierocles and Paul agree that one should be "undistracted" from one's primary duty or call Musonius, frag 13A, Epictetus, Dis 3 22, and Hierocles, in Stobaeus 4 22 22, agree (against Antipater) that marriage is helpful for some but not advantageous (would be distracting) for others Like these Roman Stoics, when Paul advises the Corinthians about marriage, he writes for their "advantage" (σύμφορον, 1 Cor 7 35) Like these three Roman Stoics, in 1 Cor 7 32-35 Paul chooses Stobaeus's third option, he advises the Corinthians that marriage is helpful for some, but not advantageous for others C Κ Barrett argues that "anxiety" (μεριμνάω, αμέριμνος) as used

19 See Adolf Bonhoffer Die Ethik des Stoikers Epiktet (Stuttgart Friedrich Frommann 1968 first published 1894) 86-89 and Margarethe Billerbeck Epiktet vom Kynismus (Philosophia Antiqua 34 Leiden Brill 1978) 130-32 20 Cp Musonius frag 14 (500 1 Hense 94 3 Lutz) 21 See Teles On Circumstances ed and trans Ε Ν O Neil Teles (The Cyme Teacher) {SBUIT 11 Missoula Scholars 1977)58-61 Balch 1 Cor 7 32-35 and Stoic Debates 435 here by Paul is uniformly negative,22 whether anxiety about things of the Lord or anxiety about things of the world This is consistent with the Stoic assumption and with Matt 6 25-34, "Do not be anxious for your life " Cp 1 Pet 5 7 If taken in this way the sentence is a criticism of the ascetic ten­ dency in Corinth, a tendency that is evidence of an anxiety to win God's favour by pleasing him through the performance of meritorious religious works The ascetics who decry marriage (7 1) are not rising above but falling below the Christian standard 23 By citing Barrett, I have moved from discussion of the Stoic assumption that one should be "without distractions" to the assumption that one should be "without anxiety " Bultmann said that this second term is "not found in the Stoa,"24 but there is an important occurrence in the Stoic Hierocles' discussion (quoted above, ρ 3) whether the wise man should marry Both the Stoics and Paul agree that being anxious and being distracted from the service of God are negative 25 But if Barrett's inter­ pretation is correct, Paul avoids the one-sided conclusion drawn by Antipater that the wise man should marry Rather, "since every person has his own special gift from God" (1 Cor 7 7), Paul observes that celibacy makes some men and women anxious and distracted while marriage makes others anxious and distracted Each Christian must decide for herself or himself (cp 1 Cor 7 7b, 10 14, 11 13, 28, 2 Cor 8 8, 10, 9 7, 11 20, Rom 14 5) Depending on the particular person involved, he who marries does well, and he who refrains from marriage does better (1 Cor 7 38) 26

22 C Κ Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC, New York Harper and Row, 1968) 178-82 Thus he disagrees with Weiss, Der erste Korinther- brief, 201-2 23 Ibid , 179 24 R Bultmann, "μεριμνάω" TDNT 4 (1967) 590 25 Zeph Stewart, "Democntus and the Cynics," Harvard Studies m Classical Philology 63 (1958) 179-91, at ρ 183 argues that the Cynics' source for this was Democntus (see Diog Laert 9 45) For similar views in the Cynic Demetrius, Paul's contemporary, see Seneca, On Benefits 7 2 3-4, cited by Billerbeck, Epiktet vom Kynismus 2, η 8 This is also an element in the rhetorical tradition Pseudo-Dionysius, "On Epideictic Speeches," when discussing marriage speeches, says "Marriage is also the greatest use m facing the pains and distresses of life, it makes them lighter burdens as it were, because we share our distresses with our wives and are comforted by their companionship At the same time, pleasures must appear more delightful " Trans D A Russell and H G Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford Clarendon, 1981) 367, the authors date the text CAD 300 (see pp xl, 362) But E Schwartz, "Dionysius (113),' PW 5 (1905) 969 dates it c AD 150 Praechter, Hierocles, 141-42 discusses the relationship between the Stoic ideas and their rhetorical use and argues that the Stoics influenced the rhetoricians on the subject of marriage 26 A Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das neue Testament (dessen Alfred Topelmann, 1911) 35 436 Journal of Biblical Literature

Schräge was incorrect when he originally denied that Stoicism is the source of Paul's ideas and even of his terminology He was misled because he confused this historical question with another theological one, whether Paul's eschatology can be reduced to anthropology, as is done by Braun 27 Again assuming that Barrett's exegesis is correct, Paul here uses the Stoic ideas against the individualistic Corinthians, religious supermen and women anxious about their own salvation, their own pur­ ity in body and spirit (1 Cor 7 34, contrast 2 Cor 7 1) Schräge does cor­ rectly observe that Paul corrects the Corinthian anthropology by his Chnstology, e g , in 1 Cor 4 4, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted, it is the Lord who judges me " Paul is a slave of a Lord who also transcends himself, he does not manip­ ulate this Lord even by his celibacy, and neither can the Corinthians This also means that Cartlidge misinterprets Paul when he says, "How do we deal with Paul's belief that liberation can come only with a disso­ lution of our sexuality ? We must dare to say that Paul was wrong at this point For one thing, we recognize that there is a bondage in celi­ bacy just as there is in sexuality "28 Paul's terms are that marriage makes some Christians anxious and distracted while celibacy makes others anx­ ious and distracted Paul differs from Antipater, who argues that every male citizen of a Greek city should marry to avoid domestic distraction, and from Epictetus, who argues that, to avoid domestic distraction, no Cynic should marry According to Paul, both are correct with respect to some persons (Christians) and incorrect with respect to others The second part of this note deals with a phenomenon often noticed in the text Wayne Meeks observes Formally the striking thing about that chapter [1 Cor 7] is the number of monotonously parallel statements made about the obli­ gations, respectively, of men and women verses 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 28, 32-34 It looks as though Paul were labor­ ing to express the male and female roles in almost precisely the same language 29 labels Epictetus' and Paul's motivation "completely different," for the Cynic's refusal to marry is an exception while Paul gives general advice not to marry If Barrett's exegesis is correct, Bonhoffer misunderstands Paul's view Heinrich Greeven, Das Hauptproblem der Sozialethik in der neueren Stoa und im Urchristentum (Neutestamenthche Forschungen 3 4, Gütersloh 'Der Rufer" Evangelischer Verlag, 1934) 134 notes that Paul, like Hiero­ cles, knows circumstances in which one should not marry 27 Schräge, 'Die Stellung," 127, 136-37, 148-49 28 David R Cartlidge, "1 Corinthians 7 as a Foundation for a Christian Sex Ethic," JR 55 (1975) 220-34, at ρ 234 29 Wayne A Meeks, The Image of the Androgyne Some Uses of a Symbol m Earliest Christianity,' HR 13 (1974) 165-208, at ρ 199 Also Robin Scroggs, "Paul and the Escha- tological Woman,' JAAR 40 (1972) 282-303, at pp 294-95, and Greeven, Das Haupt­ problem, 135 Balch: 1 Cor 7:32-35 and Stoic Debates 437

On the basis of the same observation, Scroggs draws the conclusion that for Paul, "in the home as well as at work in the church, woman is equal to man/'30 Are there Stoic analogies to support Scroggs's conclusion? In general, these Stoics theoretically support sexual equality but deny it in practice.31 Antipater refers to a man's wife as "another like himself," an Aristotelian phrase (EE VII 1245a 30; NE IX 1170b 6)32 which does not really mean "equal" but only "similar" to oneself. Aris­ totle uses this phrase of one's "friend," but he speaks of "friends" who are not "equal" (e.g., NE VIII 1161a 16-1162a 34). So Antipater is willing to understand a wife as "similar" to her husband, but in practice, her social role is subordinate. The husband would devote himself to reason or poli­ tics while she keeps the house; Antipater's use of the verb οίκονομέίν shows that he accepts the old Greek contrast in which the man "man­ ages" outside the house while the wife "manages" inside (see the quota­ tions above). The wife is theoretically similar, but in social practice a subordinate housekeeper who is to bear many children for the army. Antipater defines her role in another work excerpted by Stobaeus to illustrate the second answer to the question of marriage: "marriage is not good" (unless the girl has certain virtues and abilities).

30 Scroggs, "Paul," 295. 31 See Appendix V in my book, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Chico: Scholars, 1981) where I argue that the Aristotelian concern for the wife's subordination influences the practice of these Roman Stoics. Cp. G. J. D. Aalders, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1975) 30: "The combination αρχ<εν και αργ^σθαι [in pseudo-Pythagorean writings], although not exclusively Aristotelian . . . , reminds one of the emphasis with which this notion is brought forward recurringly in the Aristotelian Politics. ..." While doing this present research, I noticed that my emphasis on Aristotelian sources of the form of the NT domes­ tic codes was preceded by Dieter Lührmann, "Wo man nicht mehr Sklave oder Freier ist. Überlegungen zur Struktur frühchristlicher Gemeinden," in Wort und Dienst, Jahrbuch der theologischen Schule Bethel 13 (1973) 53-83, at pp. 76-79. 32 Gaiser, Für und wider die Ehe, 71 and Eyben, "De latere Stoa," 32, n. 22. Antipater continues: "a second person like himself (it makes no difference whether this one is female or male). ..." Several scholars understand this phrase to refer to a Stoic ideal of sexual "equality" in marriage. However, Daniel Babut, "Les Stoïciens et l'amour," Revue des études grecques 76 (1963) 55-63, at p. 59, argues that the phrase refers to the paradoxi­ cal, typically Stoic acceptance of both marital and homosexual love. He cites Plutarch, Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions 1072F-1073C, to support this interpretation; but Eyben disagrees (ibid.). He says that Antipater's interpretation of this Aristotelian phrase means only that the definition of a "friend" can, with the same validity, be used of the husband or the wife. Against Babut's assertion that all Stoics accepted homosexuality, Eyben (ibid., p. 75, n. 11) points out that Musonius, (frag. 12) "On Sexual Indulgence," rejects it, accepting sexual activity as virtuous only when it occurs in marriage for the purpose of begetting children. Therefore, two errors have been made in interpreting this phrase: (1) The Aristotelian phrase, "another like oneself," has been misinterpreted as a reference to sexual "equality" when it refers only to similarity, and (2) Babut seems mis­ taken in arguing that Antipater here explicitly refers to and approves of homosexuality. 438 Journal of Biblical Literature

Carefully examine this, because she must manage slaves and free­ men, both those inside and outside (the house); and there are neighbors and others who come into (the home), and social bonds with friends. In another way, she must manage the butcher, skilled workers, seamstresses, and other craftsmen and crafts- women. For such persons are always at hand, and they put im­ portant matters into her hands. ("Concerning Companionship with a Wife," 254,16-22 von Arnim; 4.539,21-540, 6 Hense; my translation) A certain social role is expected of this wife, not the same role anticipated by the husband. Musonius states the theory that women have the same senses, even the same parts of the body, as men (frag. 3; 38,26-40,2 Lutz). Virtue is "equally (ΐσος) appropriate to the nature of both" sexes (frag. 4; 46,32 Lutz). Of the four Roman Stoics being discussed, Musonius has the strongest statement of theoretical sexual "equality"; he is the only one who explicitly uses this adjective. But because of current practice, even Musonius is forced to an ad hominem argument which assumes that women are weaker, subordinate to and worse than men (frag. 12; 86,38- 88,4 Lutz). "In the first place a woman must be a good housekeeper" (frag. 3; 40,10-12 Lutz). Epictetus also uses the Aristotelian phrase employed by Antipater: a Cynic may marry "one like himself" (Dis. 3.22.63, 68, 76; cp. 2.22.2, 36). Crates' wife was "another Crates" (3.22.76). In the present, a Cynic does not live in a city of wise persons, so he should not marry. Otherwise, when Epictetus discusses appropriate social roles (Dis. 2.10), it does not occur to him to treat the role of a woman. Here he differs from his teacher Musonius. Hierocles makes no statement of theoretical sexual equality, but his section "on household management" (in Stobaeus 4.28.21; 5.696,21-699,15 Hense) does indeed tamper with traditional social roles of husband and wife!33 He states the traditional view: rural, forensic and political deeds belong to the husband, while spinning wool, cooking and everything domestic belong to the wife (697,1-3 Hense). But then in the next three pages of Greek text, he argues in a very striking way that this division of roles is not fit, beautiful or pleasing! Nevertheless, even Hierocles assumes that in practice a wife should be subordinate to her husband (in Stobaeus 4.22.21; 4.502,1-7 Hense).34 Antipater, Musonius and Hierocles, each in his own way, state that a wife is "similar" or "equal" to her husband. Each also then subordinates her to him in practice. Paul probably did the same. Twentieth-century

33 Eyben, "De latere Stoa," 350 notes that Musonius, (frag. 4) "Should Daughters Receive the Same Education as Sons" precedes Hierocles in criticizing traditional sexual roles. 34 Praechter, Hierocles, 68, 75; Eyben, "De latere Stoa," 350. Balch 1 Cor 7 32-35 and Stoic Debates 439 egalitarians are frustrated by Paul's knowing and stating a theory of equality (Gal 3 28), then consciously omitting it in a difficult practical situation (1 Cor 12 13, 7 17-24), and adding that women should wear veils (1 Cor 11 5) and keep silent in public worship (1 Cor 14 33b-35, if genuine) This inconsistency between theory and practice is also found in the Roman Stoics whose philosophy influenced the culture in which Paul lived To summarize, in 1 Cor 7 32-35, Paul uses technical terms common in Stoic discussions concerning marriage Antipater, Epictetus, Hierocles and Paul agree that "distraction" from one's central duty or call is nega­ tive The discussion is carried on to determine what is "advantageous" or beneficial One should deal with "anxiety " Antipater concludes that every male citizen should marry Musonius, Epictetus, Hierocles and Paul conclude (to use Stobaeus's rubric) that "marriage is helpful for some, not advantageous for others " Second, Antipater, Musonius, Hiero­ cles and Paul all understand the wife to be "similar" or even "equal" (a rare term) to her husband, but inconsistently, all four subordinate her in practice 35

35 My understanding of Musonius is closer to the interpretation of Luise Schottroff than to that of William Klassen See L Schottroff, "Frauen m der Nachfolge Jesu in neutesta- menthcher Zeit," in W Schottroff and W Stegemann (eds ), Traditionen der Refreiung, 2 Frauen m der Bibel (Munich Christian Kaiser, 1980) 91-133, esp 93, 113, 126, and W Klassen, "Musonius Rufus, Jesus and Paul Three First Century Feminists," in From Jesus to Paul Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare (ed John C Hurd and Peter Richardson, Waterloo Wilfred Laurier, forthcoming 1983), chap 14 A crucial point is that institutions (here the political structures of Roman houses and cities) are often more powerful than individuals The individual Roman knight and philosopher Musonius states the ideal of equality, but he has to, and agrees to, adjust his practice to Roman social reality It is anachronistic when Klassen describes Musonius simply as an "egalitarian " He would have been Utopian m Roman society if he had attempted to organize a "demo­ cratic, ' egalitarian household In this article, I have discussed the Roman Stoics Antipater, Musonius, Epictetus and Hierocles, not the Cynic Epistles (ed A J Malherbe, SBLSBS 12, Missoula Scholars, 1977) Crates' letters to Hipparchia (28-33) are more egalitarian Aalders, Political Thought, 55-63 questions whether Cynic protests had any actual political influence For other philosophical influences on early Christian ideas about marriage see Elaine Pagels, "Adam and Eve, Christ and the Church A Survey of Second Century Controver­ sies Concerning Marriage," in The New Testament and Gnosis Essays in Honour of Professor Robert McL Wilson (ed A J M Wedderburn and AHB Logan, Edinburgh Τ & Τ Clark, forthcoming) ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.