WOMEN AMONG JESUS’ FOLLOWERS

The Gospels record that among the disciples of Jesus women were a constant element, though none of the twelve apostles was female. The same presence of women appears in the Acts and in the personal greetings appended to Pauline letters. Rom. 16: 1 mentions with Andronicus a woman named Junias, ‘distinguished among the apostles’. Women could be inspired prophets with charismatic gifts, like the daughters of Philip (Acts 21: 9). At Corinth they spoke with tongues as much as any (1 Cor. 11: 4). The injunction that ‘women should keep silence in the assembly’ (1 Cor. 14: 34) suggests that some Corinthian women had become a noisy presence which needed checking.

A sharper suppression seemed necessary to the author of 1 Tim. 2: 11–14, for whom the role of women was to be quiet, to stay at home, and not to teach church members with official authority.
Widows as a class were vulnerable in ancient society, and special charitable action was needed to protect them, 1 Tim. 5: 3–16 shows that some widows were too merry for social comfort, while others were the heart and soul of the praying community. Ignatius (Sm. 13. 1) has a surprising greeting to ‘the virgins who are called widows’. So there were groups of ascetic widows who included unmarried ladies in their society.

Tertullian regarded an excessively prominent and public role for women as a characteristic of heretical communities, where they were found to teach, exorcize, promise healings, and ‘perhaps even give baptism’ (Praescr. haer. 41. 5). In the romance of Paul and Thecla, Thecla baptizes herself, which for Tertullian was an additional ground for disparaging the story. His shift towards Montanist sympathies no doubt altered this perspective.

Admission to the order of widows was the kind of act for which the local bishop would be invited to bless and perhaps to lay on hands. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition  insists that this was an appointment but not an ordination to liturgical functions. In Syria feminine society was withdrawn. From Syria come the first certain prescriptions for an order of deaconesses 1 Scholarly treatments are Anne Jensen, Gottes selbstbewußte Töchter (Freiburg i. B., 1992) = God’s Self-Confident Daughters (Kampen, 1996), and Ute E. Eisen, Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1996).appointed to assist the bishop, especially at catechism and baptism. They were also important in visiting sick women in the congregation. At first they bore the simple title ‘deacon’; the feminine ‘deaconess’ (diakónissa) is a later form. During the third century there were churches where the women deacons evidently had had some part to play in the liturgy, since in 325 the Council of Nicaea had to rule that they are to be ranked with the laity. The need for such a canon implies that some churches held the opposite view.

In ancient society women who wrote books were rare, and in the Christian community almost all the surviving records were written by men. The most influential women in the life of the ancient Church were to be the ascetics, especially if they were heads of their communities, and also highborn ladies with financial resources. The latter largely contributed to the church chest and therefore to the welfare for the poor and indigent. Among the poor, widows were a fairly high proportion. At the time of the great persecution of Diocletian the state authorities visited the church at Cirta in north Africa and demanded to investigate their property. The church library had already been removed for safety, but the officials were able to remove eight chalices, two being of gold, six of silver, numerous torches, and candles.

There was a refectory with casks and vessels. In addition there was a large collection of shoes and clothing, eighty-two dresses for women and thirty-eight cloaks, all of which were evidently provided by the well-to-do members of the congregation to keep the poor warm during the cold north African winters.

The pagan Platonist Porphyry once sneered at the powerful role played by rich women in the choice of bishops. There could be occasions when a bishop was chosen and consecrated against the wishes of a wealthy lady. This happened at Carthage in 306 with a resulting schism led by a lady named Lucilla. She had once been insulted (as she felt) by the bishop when he was archdeacon; she waved the bone of her favourite martyr during the commemoration of the saints at the eucharist in rebuke to the Church for failing to recognize either its authenticity or the sanctity of the martyr. The archdeacon thought this brawling in church and rebuked her; she went off in a huff (irata discessit). Schism resulted (Optatus 1. 15).

In ancient society women did not play a public role with high visibility. At the eastern end of the Mediterranean upper class women wore a veil, ancestor of the yashmak, when appearing in public. In Augustine’s time in north Africa we have the earliest evidence for the custom observed in the Arab world today, by which a husband walks in front as protector, the wife a few yards behind with children and baggage. Augustine recommended that Christian couples should walk side by side (De bono coniugali ).

The most widely practised form of population control in antiquity was the exposure of infants. Women, especially groups of ascetic women, played a notable role in gathering up foundlings. It has to be admitted that no evidence survives of the subsequent fortunes of the children they rescued, which in some cases may well have been wretched.

Married women often had serious problems with their husbands, and would then confide in their bishop to beg advice. Difficulty could arise if the women came in such distress that the bishop or presbyter comforting her became the object of an emotional attachment. A childless woman might turn to a holy man to ask his intercessions that God would grant her a child. When her prayers were answered, malicious whispers could suggest that the saint had contributed more than his prayers.

By Henry Chadwick in the book 'The Church in Ancient Society- From Galilee to Gregory, the Great', Oxford University Press, New York- Oxford, 2001, p. 53-55. Edited and adapted to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.

Share this post