NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, anD REFERENCES NOTES CHAPTER 1 1. For example, Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, 333–39; Kristeva, “Stabat Mater,” 160–86; Haskins, Mary Magdalen, 386–94. 2. Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory of Her, 97–241, quote from 97. 3. See Brock, Mary Magdalene; Schaberg, Resurrecting Mary; de Boer, Mary Magdalene Cover-Up; Jansen, Making of the Magdalen. 4. Most interesting, they do not clearly identify her at the cross or tomb. Perhaps in these scenes for some reason they called her by the name of her less important son, as Mary of James, as it reads in the Greek, but according to Richard Bauckham, the identifcation of a woman by the name of her son without also the word “mother”—μήτηρ—was unat- tested in Palestine; see Bauckham, Gospel Women, 206. 5. Weitzmann, Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue; for discussion, see Pearce, Image and Its Prohibition; for examples, see Levine, Visual Judaism in Late Antiquity; Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World; and Fine, Sacred Realm. 6. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 263ff. 7. Bernstein, “Women and Children in Legal and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” 204–9. 8. Philo of Alexandria, On the Contemplative Life, 1–90, esp. 68–69. For the leadership of women in this sect, as is suggested by the text, see Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers, 309–43; that these women were not actually virgins, because Philo simply called high-status women parthe- nos, see Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice, 231–33, and for Tervanotko’s © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 193 A. Kateusz, Mary and Early Christian Women, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11111-3 194 NOTES, ABBREVIatIONS, AND REFERENCES parsing together varied traditions about Miriam’s leadership more on a par with Moses’ leadership, see the rest of Denying Her Voice. 9. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, 5–99. 10. For diversity of opinion among rabbis regarding women, see Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History, 1–8, 43–81; and Sassoon, Status of Women in Jewish Tradition. 11. Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History, 253–62; and Ilan, “Notes and Observations on a Newly Published Divorce Bill,” 195–202. 12. Kearns, Virgin Mary, Monotheism, and Sacrifce, 88–108, 137–65. 13. Kearns, Virgin Mary, Monotheism, and Sacrifce, 97. 14. For example, recensions of the Dormition narrative, about the death of Mary, survive in Syriac, Greek, Latin, Georgian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gaelic; see van Esbroeck, “Textes littéraires sur l’Assomp- tion,” 265–68. The Protevangelium was even more widely translated. 15. Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, 182; Zervos, “Dating the Protevangelium,” 415–34; Zervos, “Early Non-Canonical Annunciation Story,” 686–88; Cartlidge, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, 23; Elliott, New Testament Apocrypha, 50. Also see Lowe, “ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ of the Apocrypha,” 56–71. 16. Lowe, “ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ of the Apocrypha,” 56–71. For more regard- ing issues of Jewish and Christian identity, and the fuid boundaries between the two until Late Antiquity, see Boyarin, Borderlines. 17. See especially, Horner, “Jewish Aspects of the Protevangelium of James,” 313–35; and Smid, Protevangelium Jacobi, 9–12. For Mary in the Temple, see Nutzman, Protevangelium of James, 551–78; and Vuong, “Let Us Bring Her Up to the Temple,” 418–32. 18. Peppard, World’s Oldest Church, 155–201, Fig. 5.1. For more discus- sion substantiating Peppard’s identifcation, see Chapter 6. 19. Kateusz, “Ascenson of Chris or Ascension of Mary,” esp. 298–302, Fig. 12. For more evidence, see Chapters 4 and 5. 20. Cartlidge, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, 17–18. 21. For the donkey, see Protevangelium, 17.2–18.1, and for the ox-manger, see Protevangelium, 22.2 (Cullmann, “Protevangelium of James,” 433, 436). For more of the earliest art of the nativity, see Cartlidge, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, Figs. 1.2 and 1.3, and Chapter 5. 22. Protevangelium, 13.2, 15.2 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:431, 432); in one passage, Joseph reminds Mary that she was raised in the Holy of Holies, and in the second passage as Temple priest reminds her of the same. Note that Vuong asserts that Mary was depicted in the Temple to emphasize her purity, but Vuong does not specifcally address why Mary also was depicted in the Holy of Holies; NOTES, ABBREVIatIONS, AND REFERENCES 195 see Vuong, Gender and Purity, esp. 173–76. See also, Hollman, “Temple Virgin and Virgin Temple,” 110–28, yet Hollman also does not specifcally address the Holy of Holies references. 23. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.15–21 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:544–45). 24. Regarding the non-controversial third-century dating, see Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:540; and Shoemaker, “Mary the Apostle,” 217. For the archaic elements, see Gospel of Bartholomew, 1.7 and 1.9 [Jesus vanished from the cross]; 2.15–20 [a Being came down as a great angel]; 3.17 and 4.61 [Mary gave birth without pain]. For detailed discussion on its archaic elements (some likely second century) and dating (diffcult), see Kaestli, Évangile de Barthélemy, 45–94. 25. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.6–13 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:543–44). For the description of Mary in this scene as essentially their liturgical leader, see Shoemaker, “Mary the Apostle,” 217. 26. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.6–7 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:543). 27. For a debate between Peter and Paul, which Peter wins, see Ethiopic Liber Requiei, 46–49 (Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 317–18). Also see Chapter 4, which demonstrates how later scribes replaced Mary with Peter, including as the leader of her prayer scene. 28. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.7 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:543). 29. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.7 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:544). The author used a version of 1 Corinthians 11:3 here. 30. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.8 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:544). Emphasis mine. 31. For more discussion about this scene, see Kateusz, “Two Women Leaders”; Brock, Mary Magdalene, 139–40; also Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith, 93–95. 32. Gospel of Bartholomew, 2.13 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:544). 33. Gospel of Bartholomew, 4.1–5, quote from 4.5 (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:545–46, esp. 46). Emphasis mine. 34. Demetrius of Antioch, Discourse on the Birth of Our Lord, 35b (Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 664). Emphasis mine. 35. Ephrem, Hymn on Mary, no. 2, 10 (Brock, Bride of Light, 36). Emphasis mine. 36. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 78 23.3–4 and 79 1.7 (Frank, Panarion, 618, 621). Some recensions of Epiphanius’s letter Ancoratus 196 NOTES, ABBREVIatIONS, AND REFERENCES do not specify it was women who offered bread, but in the text of Ancoratus that Epiphanius inserted at the end of his Book 78 in the Panarion, which immediately precedes Book 79 on the “collyridian” women priests, he specifes that women offciants were offering this sac- rifce in Mary’s name, which is consistent with what he also reports in Book 79. 37. For the detailed Six Books liturgy where bread was offered to Mary on the altar of the church, see Wright, “Departure of My Lady Mary,” 152–53, as this folio is missing from the ffth-century palimpsest text, although the palimpsest text several times mentions this liturgy. 38. Kateusz, “Collyridian Déjà vu,” 86–89; and Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith, 157–63. 39. Haines-Eitzen, Gendered Palimpsest, 77. 40. Kateusz, “Collyridian Déjà vu,” 84–85. 41. Kateusz, “Collyridian Déjà vu,” 79–84; for more detail on Mary per- forming these activities, see Chapter 2. 42. Fairclough, Language and Power, 73. 43. Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change, 137–99. 44. See, for example, Brown, World of Late Antiquity; Brown, Power and Persuasion; and Brown, Authority and the Sacred. 45. See the following chapters, especially Chapter 7. 46. Foucault, History of Sexuality, 139–44. 47. Fig. 1.2, MARIA on catacomb gold glass is from Perret, Catacombes, vol. 4, pl. 32, Fig. 101. Figure 1.3 is Mary in an apse painting in Maria in Pallara, Rome, from Wilpert, Römischen Mosaiken, pl. 224. Figure 1.4 is an oil painting by Antonio Solario (1465–1530), today in the National Gallery of Denmark, Open Access. 48. Thompson, “Vatican II and Beyond,” 409–19. NOTES CHAPTER 2 1. See 1 Corinthians 1:11 for Chloe’s house; Colossians 4:15 for Nympha’s; Philemon 1:2 for Apphia’s; Romans 16:3 for Priscilla listed frst, and 1 Cor 16:19 for the church in her house; Acts 16:40 for Lydia’s; Acts 12:12 for Mary the mother of Mark’s; and 2 John 1:1 for the unnamed lady. 2. See Romans 16. Regarding the use of prostatis for women such as Phoebe, see Montevecchim, “Donna ‘prostatis,’” 103–15. 3. I follow Eldon Epp regarding that later scribes redacted the gender of Junia’s name, remaking it into the male gendered name, Junius, and thereby eliminating a female apostle; see Epp, Junia. See Chapter 3 for more women titled “apostle,” thereby further validating Paul’s use of this title for Junia. NOTES, ABBREVIatIONS, AND REFERENCES 197 4. Especially given the pairing of Junia and Andronicus, our earliest evi- dence for the apostolate, see Taylor, “Two by Two.” Bauckham sug- gests that Junia may have been Joanna, known from Luke 8:3 and 24:10; Bauckham, Gospel Women, 109–202. 5. Pliny the Younger, Epistle, 10.96. 6. Celsus, On the True Doctrine, 6:111–18. 7. Clark, “Holy Women,” 413. 8. Clark, “Holy Women,” 415.