[1] Krister, Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, trans. Sander, E. T. (Philadelphia, 1966) and ‘Women in the Church: No Special Pleading’,Google ScholarSoundings 53 (1970), 374–8.Google ScholarLetty, M. Russell, Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia, 1974).Google ScholarLetha, Scanzoni and Nancy, Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be (Waco, Texas, 1974),Google ScholarJewett, P. K., Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, 1975).Google ScholarMollenkott, V. R., Women, Men, and the Bible (Nashville, 1977). Such views are also expressed on a more technical level by other New Testament scholars including Stendahl.Google Scholar See Caird, G. B., ‘Paul and Women's Liberty’, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 54 (1972), 268–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarScroggs, R., ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman’, J. of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMeeks, W. A., ‘The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity’, History of Religions 13 (1974), 165–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLongstaff, T. R. W., ‘The Ordination of Women: A Biblical Perspective’, Anglican Theological Review 57 (1975), 316–27.Google Scholar

[2] Gerhard, Delling, Paulus' Stellung Zu Frau Und Ehe (Stuttgart, 1931), p. 120,Google Scholar says, ‘Paulus spricht hier nur von der Stellung der Gemeindeglieder zu Gott…in Christus sind sie alle eins, aber nicht gleich.’ He is apparently followed by Leipoldt, J., Die Frau in Der Antiken Welt und im Urchristentum (Leipzig, 1955), pp. 170 ff.Google Scholar More recently this has been asserted with various modifications by Knight, G. W., ‘Male and Female Related He Them’, Christianity Today (04 9, 76), 13–17.Google ScholarLeitch, E. F., ‘Feminism or Femininity?’, The Cambridge Fish (Winter, 75–76), 2, 6.Google Scholar And by my former mentor, Davis, J. J., ‘Some Reflections on Galatians 3. 28, Sexual Roles and Biblical Hermeneutics’, J. of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976), 201–8.Google Scholar Interestingly, Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, 1, trans. Grobel, K. (New York, 1951), p. 309 talks in similar terms though he contrasts a social programme to the eschatological structure of the community and thus is not really affirming, in its usual sense, the Coram Deo position.Google Scholar

[3] Lindebloom, A. M., ‘De Kinderdoop in de brief aan de Galaten’ (Infant Baptism in the Epistle to the Galatians), Homiletica en Biblica 21 (1962), 127–8 (cf. NTA 7. 221).Google Scholar

[4] Boucher, M., ‘Some Unexplored Parallels to I Cor. 11:11–12, and Gal. 3:28; the New Testament on the Role of Women’, CBQ 31 (1969), 50–8.Google Scholar

[5] Boucher, Cf., pp. 54–5.Google ScholarMontefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., Rabbinic Anthology (London, 1938), p. 346.Google Scholar

[6] Montefiore, , p. 380.Google Scholar

[7] Perhaps it should be added that Paul in Gal. 3. 28 is saying, ‘neither… nor’ in his first two pairs which is also unlike these sayings. One could argue on the basis of this evidence that Paul, like these Jews, is only saying something from the Coram Deo perspective.

[8] Diogenes, Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1. 33,Google ScholarLoeb, Vol. I, trans. Hicks, R. D. (London, 1925), p. 35.Google Scholar

[9] Raphael, Loewe, The Position of Women in Judaism (London, 1966), pp. 52–3. The background of the Jewish blessing which was recited because men were allowed to participate more fully in the cult should be kept in mind.Google Scholar

[10] Gal., 2. 11 ff.,Google Scholar if it also applies to Galatia as well as Antioch, means that the distinctions of clean and unclean were being urged. In light of what has been said about the implications of women's uncleanness and cultic observance, we may see that here the male-female distinction was being viewed in a fashion that allowed males to have a more privileged position. Meyer, R., ‘πάροικος’, TDNT V, ET. Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids, 1967), pp. 846–7,Google Scholar n. 26, says that none ofthese Jewish or Greek ‘parallels’ leads to Gal., 3. 28, only God's gracious redemption does.Google Scholar

[11] George, F. Moore, Judaism II (New York, 1971), 119 ff.Google Scholar

[12] Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women (London, 1962), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar

[13] Daube, D., The Duty of Procreation (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 9 ff.Google ScholarPlutarch, , Lysander, 30. 5,Google Scholar in Loeb, , The Parallel Lives, IV, trans. Perrin, B. (London, 1948), pp. 320–1.Google ScholarPlutarch, , Lycurgus and Numa, 15. 1 ff.,Google Scholar in Loeb, , Parallel Lives, I, trans. Perrin, B. (London, 1948), pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar

[14] Dinarchus, , Against Demosthenes, 99. 71,Google Scholar in Loeb, , Minor Attic Orators, II, trans. Burt, J. O. (London, 1954), pp. 224–5.Google Scholar

[15] Plato, Republic, 5. 9.460E, in Budé's, Platon, La République, trans. Chambry, E. (Paris, 1946), p. 67.Google Scholar

[16] For this insight I am indebted to my friend, Charles Wanamaker. He presented this idea to the Fall, 1977 research students seminar of Prof. C. K. Barrett, University of Durham, England in an unpublished paper entitled, ‘Sonship of Believers in Galatians’. See also, Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, 1977), pp. 457, 504, 547, where ‘one person’ is shown to have no precedent in rabbinic Judaism. Sanders sees this pericope as the core of the Epistle, where the threads are drawn together as well.Google Scholar

[17] de W. Burton, E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh, 1921), pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar He notes the change of persons from v. 25 to v. 26, and the position of πάντες which makes it emphatic. Paul is applying the thought of the one verse to the other, for Paul is indeed saying, ‘…and this applies to all of you’. The second γάρ clause in v. 27 does not seem to be causal, rather it is a further explanation and substantiation of the previous thought. Burton, Cf., p. 206,Google Scholar and Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1896), p. 149, who says the second clause explains the previous one.Google Scholar

[18] The γάρ in 3. 28 is perhaps best seen as causal here because of the sense of the sentence - ‘You are not primarily all these distinct groups of people in the community of faith because in Christ you are first and foremost one person.’ See the statement below made by Loewe on the basis of Christian, in contrast to the Jewish, community.

[19] Scroggs, Cf. R., ‘Paul and the eschatological Woman’, pp. 283–303.Google Scholar

[20] Meeks, W. A., ‘The Image of Androgyne’, 166 ff., 180 ff.Google Scholar who notes this and develops it in quite an interesting fashion. Seesemann, Cf. H., ‘παλαιός’, TDNT V, ET. Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids, 1967), 719,Google Scholar and Michel, O., ‘Σκύθης’, TDNT VII, ET. Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids, 1971), 449.Google Scholar

[21] Meeks, W. A. amply shows this. Lietzmann, Cf. H., Handbuch zum Neuen Testament an Die Galater (Tübingen, 1932), pp. 23–4.Google Scholar

[22] This is where I feel Meeks' analysis breaks down. Paul (I Cor., 11)Google Scholar argues against any androgynous original being or new androgyne in Christ. Eve comes from the temporally prior man, otherwise Paul's argument in 1 Cor., 11Google Scholar for the headship makes no sense. This is corroborated by the gender of ες in Gal., 3, 28 which reflects the fact that Christ was a male and we are united to Him. That He is the head of all Christians who are the Body is not a denial but a reaffirmation of Paul's view of male headship.Google Scholar

[23] Not, as some have argued, ‘There can be’. Schonfleld, Cf. H. J., The Authentic New Testament (Aberdeen, 1955), p. 281;Google ScholarLightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians p. 150.Google Scholar In contrast, Burton, , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Galatians, p. 207,Google Scholar is surely right. Meyer, H. A. W., Handbook to the Epistle to the Galatians, trans. Venables, G. H. (Edinburgh, 1884), pp. 203 ff.,Google Scholar presents a very fine argument for seeing the ἔνι as an abbreviated form for ἔνεοτι (1 Cor., 6. 5,Google ScholarCol., 3. 11,Google ScholarJames, 1. 17)Google Scholar not an adverbially used preposition as Delling, G., Paulus' Stellung, p. 120,Google Scholar n. 1, has it. Delling, however, is right that considering the context (28b) Paul is saying that being these things is not an option because we are one person in Christ. This is a matter of context, not of grammar. On ἔνι, Blass-Debrunner, cf., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. Funk, R. W. (Chicago, 1961), sec. 98, p. 49;Google ScholarRobertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, 1934), pp. 313, 419, 558;Google ScholarBauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1952), p. 265;Google ScholarMoulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, 1930), p. 215.Google Scholar

[24] Interestingly, Chrysostom has Blass-Debrunner, cf., sec. 446, p. 231.Google Scholar

[25] Lightfoot, , p. 150;Google ScholarStendahl, , Bible and the Role of Women, p. 32.Google Scholar On the translations which simply have perfect paralleisms with the connectives of all three pairs, cf. RSV, NEB, JB, KJV, J. B. Phillips, TEV, Schonfield, and even the literalistic NASB. I have found no translations apart from some of the commentaries (Burton, , p. 206; Lightfoot, , p. 150) that have recognized this break in the symmetry.Google Scholar

[26] Lightfoot, , p. 150,Google Scholar suggests the parallelism is broken because we are dealing with a distinction of a different order; Stendalil, because of the allusion to Gen., 1. 27. I think the latter more probable.Google Scholar

[27] ‘Emphatic sexual distinction…is mostly expressed in biblical Greek by ἄρσεν and θλ…’ Oepke, A., ‘άν⋯ρ’, TDNT I, ET. Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids, 1964), 362.Google Scholar

[28] Stendahl, , p. 32 ff.Google Scholar

[29] Lincoln, A., ‘Yet Again Paul, Women, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics: Preliminary Observations for a Future Paper’, unpublished (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1976–1977), pp. 31, 32.Google Scholar

[30] I think that Colossians is Pauline and reflects some of his more developed ideas about Christology and Ecclesiology. Even if it is seen to be Deutero-Pauline, drawing upon Paul's thought and extrapolating it for other settings, my argument would not be substantially affected.

[31] Romans, 10. 12Google Scholar is more like Gal., 5. 6 and 6. 15.Google Scholar It is interesting that Paul does not mention male and female (ἄρσεν καί θλυ) as a pair in similar statements other tha in Gal., 3. 28Google Scholar and not in 1 Corinthians where women are an issue. Does this indicate a Pauline addition to the formula in Gal., 3. 28 to meet a problem?Google Scholar

[32] Loewe, R., pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

[33] Grundmann, W., ‘χρίω’, TDNT IX, ET. Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids, 1974), 552.Google ScholarSchneemelcher, , ‘νίός’, TDNT 8, 391.Google Scholar

[34] Allworthy, T. B., Women in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge, 1917), p.41.Google Scholar

[35] Babylonian Talmud Yev. 63b, end: Moore, , Judaism, 2, p. 119.Google Scholar

[36] Deut. 23. 1. Eunuchs were not allowed to participate fully in the cults in the Old Testament.

[37] Ås was mentioned to me in a seminar by Banks, R., ‘Paul's View of Community’ (University of Durham, 01 27, 1977).Google Scholar

[38] Colin, Brown, ‘Man’, Dictionary of New Testament Theology, II, ed. Brown, C. (Grand Rapids, 1976), p. 570.Google Scholar Some of the same points are made by Bouttier, M., ‘Complexio Oppositorum: sur les Formules de 1 Cor. xii, 13; Gal. iii, 26–8; Col. iii, 10–11’, NTS 23 (1976), 1–19 (cf. NTA 21.505).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[39] I do not for a minute suppose that Paul was an advocate of the ascetic notions that are present in this story about the evils of sex and the sanctity of virginity dedicated to Christ. Nor do I think that Paul's statement is like that made in the Gospel of the Egyptians and elsewhere about ‘neither male nor female’. It does seem possible that the church deduced that since women were involved in working and evangelizing with Paul and that he made clear that there was a place for single women, that the example of Thecla was a legitimate one. Thecla's ministry is primarily to other women, though she witnesses to the governor when required to speak. On the Gospel of the Egyptians and Clement's mention of sayings similar to Gal., 3. 28,Google ScholarHennecke, cf. E., New Testament Apocrypha, I, ed. Schneemelcher, W. (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 168–9.Google Scholar On Paul, and Thecla, , cf., New Testament Apocrypha, 2 (1965), pp. 353, 363–4.Google Scholar This type of liberation from the sexuality of being a woman, rather than of the female sex is not quite what K. Stendahl meant in any case. Paul was not advocating emasculation of the community of faith either physically or spiritually. This, it will be remembered, was what he said his opponents should do - eliminate physically all trace of one's sexual distinctness if one was a male (Gal., 5. 12).Google ScholarStauffer, Cf. E., ‘e┬ς’, TDNT II, ET. Bromiley, G.W. (Grand Rapids, 1964), 440–1.Google Scholar