Some Data on Women in the Primitive Church

by M^a José Arana

translation from the Spanish Mujeres Sacerdotes ¿Por qué No...?

Original text: Publicaciones Claretianas, Madrid 1994; ISBN: 84-7966-078-3;
republished with the permission of the author.

1. General Considerations

It is evident that we still do not know enough about the life, organisation, liturgy etc. of the first Christian communities; however, it seems that it would be very bold to say their development was characterised by a monolithic nature and uniformity.

We are already very conscious that, in the interpretation of this era in the Church, many anachronisms have been committed, transferring subsequent senses and meanings to terms like priest, presbyter, deacon, hierarchy..... and even the eucharist. The ecclesiastical organisation in these early times has been understood according to rankings and experiences of later centuries. That, evidently, makes it difficult, nowadays, to get a fair interpretation and understanding of those communities.

Many male and female authors recognise the structuring of the first communities in Jerusalem as much more similar to those of the synagogues and Jewish models than what we currently understand as the Church; we even know from the Acts that Christians continued coming to the Jewish Temple (1). Christians were not the same nor did they emphasise the same things in the Johannine communities, in the Pauline communities or those of Jerusalem. Not all of them were Jewish but many of them were located in places in which the emancipation of women was far superior to that recorded in Jewish areas. For example, the Johannine communities emphasised the importance of the “Beloved Disciple” and not so much that of Peter (2). That is to say, it was a question of communities being formed and growing with pretty considerable structural agility.

We need to briefly point out some general characteristics of these Churches. The Apostles (the Twelve) did not form part of the group of priests but remained in a different category; in that era, the term priest did not have the priestly connotation it has had since either; the movement towards resacralizacion would be carried out subsequently. Moingt says: “The ministers of Christ did not have any reason to demand priestly privileges that Christ had not claimed for Himself, and nothing, either in his evangelical ministry or his behaviour persuaded them to establish themselves in the holy area where the traditional sacraments are officiated.” (3). In addition, the primitive communities claimed the universal priesthood of the faithful, something fairly forgotten subsequently, so that the concept and practice of the ministry, as well as the very structuring of the Church, had to end up undoubtedly different from how we understand them to be today.

2. The Twelve

We should also think about the institution of the Twelve. In fact, within this group there was not one single woman. Why not? We have to see in this the symbolic application of the Old Testament with some clear Jewish resonances. The Twelve represented the twelve tribes of Israel: “Ye too shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19, 28). There are also twelve doors to celestial Jerusalem and twelve stars crown the Woman of the book of Revelation. The Twelve would also be an image of the twelve Patriarchs, who would, in the end, signify the Jewish People (4). That is to say, we have to see in them a hint of fulfilling of the Old Testament with a clear eschatological projection. In fact, Judas is replaced by his fellow Jew, Matthias, but no nominal changing of the remaining Eleven was allowed for after his death and it is clear that among them there is no-one who does not belong to the Jewish People ...(!)

But we can also see that Paul came to form part of the group, therefore not respecting the number twelve, since with Matthew it would have made thirteen, nor can we find the conditions required for him to form part of the said group: he did not personally know the Master; Paul is always seen as a valid exception and, in some way, as a representative of Christians and of non-Jewish humanity which was incorporated in them.

The role of the Twelve in the primitive Church does not appear to be linked to any hierarchical duty; their presence in evangelisation is significant and they are not presented as a separate structure; and even less so, as we said previously, did they form a group which was priestly in character.

So, as S.Tunc points out: “the Twelve are the stones on which our faith rests. In this sense, all of us are their successors in the faith. The whole Church is, effectively, apostolic. The ties which exist between the Twelve and their future ministers are only a tie of succession to the service of continuity in the whole Church “ (5).

3. Prophecy

Another important question that we need to emphasise is that of prophecy. The list that Paul proposes (1 Corinthians 12, 28-30) on the prominence and order of the charisms has not always been sufficiently taken into account. Prophecy occupies one of the top places, while those referring to the running of the Church are situated in lower places. We do not know, either, the concrete duty which corresponded to each one of these charisms. For example, the community of Antioch appears in Acts 13, ruled by “prophets and teachers”.

One of the most important duties of the Prophet consisted of proclaiming the Action of Grace which, according to the exegetes signified that they delivered the prayers of “the blessing” or “Eucharistic prayers”, “the action of liturgical grace”. “Would this mean the Eucharistic Supper of the Lord? Generally it is interpreted like this. So, would women prophets be able to deliver the action of grace?” (6). If this gift was really recognised in them, it seems inevitable that they would also have been allowed to act in the proper frameworks of prophecy. We have also already referred to prophecy and the charismatics when treating of the subject of confession. This perspective is very important to get to know the duties of women in the primitive Church.

Of course, they did not constitute a novelty since in the Old Testament we find an abundance of examples: Hulda, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah..... and it is of special interest for us as it makes us aware of the clear continuity that there was amongst women prophets of both Testaments and whose relationship is pointed out from the day of the Pentecost: “I will pour forth of my Spirit......, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2,17).

In fact, one of the main difficulties that the “Montanists” had with orthodoxy was that of women charismatics and prophets and the ecclesiastical leading role they were granted because “in addition to allowing women to give orders, they carried out the ministry...” (7). They had women who prophesised “in a manner which was contrary to the traditional way established since the beginning” (Eusebio de Cesarea). What it does not explain very clearly is what those duties were in the 4^th century, (although it does explain their limitations). The problem is captured more clearly in a dialogue between a Montanistand an “orthodox believer” – let’s see a fragment:

M – And, why are you horrified by Maximilla and Priscilla and say that women are not allowed to prophesise? Did Philip not have three daughters who were prophets? Was Deborah not a prophet herself? Does the Apostle not say “let every woman who prays or prophesises do so with her head covered”? (which he would not have said) if there were no women amongst them who prophesised and prayed. So, they prophesised too!

O – We do not have any aversion at all with respect to feminine prophesising. Holy Mary also prophesised when she said “From now on all the generations will congratulate me”. Like you have said, Philip also had four daughters who were prophets. Miriam, the sister of Aaron, prophesised. But we do not allow them to speak in Church or to have authority over men to the point of having books writted by females. Because to pray and prophesise with one’s head covered dishonours the head, i.e. the male. Mary, the holy Mother of God – would she not have been able to write books with her name? However, she did not do so in order not to dishonour the head or have authority over men.

As we can see, even by this era, in orthodox communities they do not give examples nor do they explain what the women prophets do at that time. They refer to the women of the Scriptures and, greatly limiting the duties, they simply resort to the words of Paul which make women keep quiet in church; not for a moment do they explain their position or their significance in the Church during the early times – they just rely on subsequent practice (end of s. IV) (8).

Undoubtedly, it seems that the attention given to the gift of prophecy and its importance in the Church disappeared very soon and, of course, this point, especially in relation to its position in the ecclesiastical structure in early times, has not been sufficiently examined. The inevitable confrontation between charism and institution also occurred in the Church and, without doubt, its repercussions remained considerable: “charismatic authority” was completely displaced by a more institutional type of authority.

Some theologians point out something very interesting with regard to prophecy in the primitive community: “In the first generation, you could claim that prophecy created a means of apostolic continuity and, by basing itself on the direct intervention of the Spirit, all those who were part of the primitive Christian movement were people who were full of the Spirit (J1. 2, 17-18), which meant that any Christian could, in principle, possess that charismatic authority. Opposing this prophetic authority we find the viewpoint which bases apostolic continuity on the authority of the local ministers. Small wonder that the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries were characterized by the confrontation between both concepts of authority” (9).

4. Preaching and Evangelisation

Another aspect which is closely related with the ministry in the primitive Church and not sufficiently highlighted, is that of the preaching of the Word ofGod and the apostolate. Saint Paul, as he clearly appears in the epistles, carries out the task of the apostle – not necessarily that of the Twelve – in missionary and itinerant preaching activities. As German bishops observe (1970) there even appears to be a close relationship between the Word of God and the president of the community; however, it refers very little to cultural celebrations. The preaching of the Gospel constitutes the centre of the Apostolic ministry of Salvation linked to the priestly character and the building of the Church; however, they observe, “the duty of Paul as liturgist of his communities does not appear with the clarity which we would have expected” (10). Luke, however, does observe the relationships between the preaching of the Word of God and the “morsel of bread”, but is not specific about the presidency (Acts 2, 37-47 and 4, 32-35).

As the Document reads, “the primitive Church did not manage see all this with clarity”, referring to the role of the ministry in the “priests”, “co-priests”, “bishops”, “deacons” etc. What is not mentioned are the duties of women, which also appear in the books and passages quoted by them.

But what we cannot doubt is the apostolic action that women carried out in the New Testament. They strived hard, “tired themselves out”, “fought” for the Gospel, are missionaries and authentic apostles (cfr. Romans 16, 3-5, 12, 21 Ephesians 2,16, Colossians 1, 29 Philippians 2,3 I Corinthians 15, 10).

5. Domestic Churches. Deaconries and other Aspects

We should also point out the undoubtable domestic character of the early communities, the field in which they played a particularly leading role (which favours and re-inforces the theory we are setting forth. Rafael Aguirre specifically highlights “the house” as an important starting point for the study and understanding of the organisation of primitive Christianity (11). In the New Testament, especially in Pauline Epistles, we find many women who preside or have responsibility for domestic churches or “houses of the Lord”, as they were usually called. In reality, they were “women priests” and even “bishops” (12).

In this field, we could even find the expression of the Bishop of Vercelli (s. X), when he spoke about the women who, coming from paganism, had training in the priesthood and did not exclude the possibility of continuing to carry out similar duties in the Christian communities (13), especially if we take into account the domestic worship of paganism.

Closely related with prophecy is the “ministry of the Word” (Acts 6, 2-4). There is no doubt that the ecclesiastical/deaconry service is also related with women. Like the Disciples of the Gospel who followed Jesus and ministered to them of their possessions? (Luke 8, 1-5), they carried out the deaconry or ecclesiastical service in many forms. However, the establishment of the “deaconesses” only arose in the 2^nd Century, which was definitely as a logical consequence of, and in continuation of the practice in the primitive Church. I am not going to spend time considering this very important institution, except I will allude to it on many occasions, deeming it as well-known and something to which we have referred on other occasions. (14).

A text from the Didascalia, which we will also refer to later on, when listing the existing clerical groups, clearly places the Deacons and Deaconesses in a superior position to that of the Priests, both in the order in which they are named and in the significance which is attributed to each of them (15). The “Widow” would also have to have been attributed a significance far above the simple status of her rank, as there is no doubt that her ecclesiastical status was considerable. Will these terms have the same meaning and imply the same duties and ranks as we secure and assign them, after many centuries of history?

Already by the 8^th Century, Peter Abelard insists that “it does not seem that the religion of women is very different from the Order of the Clerics. He also notes that they were united by the name, as it is clear that we use the term Deaconess as well as Deacon” (16). In reality, the writings of the primitive Church do not give cause to think about big differences between men and women in questions referring to worship and liturgy, although men are the only ones authentically taken into account.

There is a document which is particularly interesting as it originates from the Ambrosiaster (s. IV), (which is not fond of granting women the top positions in the Church), but concludes, however, that in the beginning both men and women taught and baptised but later “a different order was established to run the Church” because it seemed “irrational, vulgar and vile” that everyone did the same thing (17).

6. Mary Magdalene

In the book of La Pistis Sophia, we find something interesting: Jesus appears to the “Twelve Apostles” and to the “Seven Female Disciples”, who followed him from Galilee (although it only names Mary Magdalene) (18), and it appears that the books of the New Testament forgets the others. It is very noteworthythat these women of the Gospel, including Mary Magdalene, are not mentioned in the Acts and other canonic books.

The Bishop of Vercelli, Atto, would not be the only one to consider Phoebe a “ministra (female minister?) ”; relying on Casiodoro and quoting Claudio, he says: “This text shows with apostolic authority that women have also been established in the ministries of the Church; Phoebe was placed in this service in the church, which was in Cenchris....” The same author says elsewhere, referring to Junia that she was “an apostolic woman, not to distort the text”, in the genuine sense of the term (19). Tabitha (Acts 9, 36), Lydia (Acts, 17,12), Prisca (Romans 16,3), Evodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4, 3) and others would merit a more detailed study by us (20).

We could continue recall and analysing many other women in the New Testament, but there is no doubt that Mary Magdalene, who Duns Scotus, when producing his theory against women priests, saw as an “exception”, as a “personal privilege destined to disappear with her”, is, therefore, the most significant and is representative of all the others.

The sources for getting to know this women better are, without doubt, the Gospels and from these, we will get a close look at her in the following chapter. But the agnostic apocryphal books and texts of Nag Hammadi, written during the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries, also provide us with very interesting and often unknown information about women in general and Mary Magdalene in particular. We discover the role that these sources acknowledged her as having in the primitive community, (which was often not in harmony with Peter).

According to the Gospel of Philip, “there were three who were always with the Lord, his mother, his sister and Mary Magdalene, who was called his companion (21). Sofia – who they call the sterile one – is the mother of the angels, the companion of Christ, Mary Magdalene”.

She appears, actively participating in the circle of Jesus and his Disciples in the book of La Pistis Sophia. Of the 46 times that the Disciples ask Jesus something, 39 are interventions by Mary Magdalene, and she also occupies a very prominent place in the performances (22). In the same book, it is claimed that Mary Magdalene and John the virgin will be “superior to all the Disciples...” (23). Also, we read in the Gospel of Philip: “they said to him: why do you love her more than you love us” The Saviour replied to them: “what makes you think I don’t love you as much as her?”.

This obvious favouritism by Jesus is provoking major tension between Mary and some of the Disciples, mainly Peter, who feels threatened by this woman: “My Lord, we cannot put up with this woman because she speaks all the time and does not let us say anything”. Mary complains because “Peter hates all women” (24). In the Gospel of Thomas, the strains intensify: “Simon Peter said to them: let Mary leave us, as women are not worthy of life” but Jesus does not think the same way: “well, I will turn her into a man, so that she can also become a living spirit like us males, because any women who becomes male will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” (25). Evidently, the interpretation of the overcoming of the sexes in the myth of the primitive androgynous would take us too long and this is not the place to do it, however interesting it might be. But what is clear is that Mary is not excluded or rejected by Jesus as Peter claims - in fact, the complete opposite is true – she occupies a privileged position.

The main degree of conflict is reflected in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Many pages of the original text are missing but there are sufficient for us to draw the conclusion that Mary was a central figure in the primitive Church. When Jesus is absent, the Disciples become saddened and discouraged. Mary intervenes and gives them a complete revelation, which Jesus had taught her (9, 12 ss). Peter says to her: “Sister, we know that the Lord prefers you to other women, tell us about the words of the Saviour that you hold in your memory, the ones you know but which we have not known or heard”. So, Mary responds: “I am going to proclaim that which is hidden to you”; and she begins to relate the revelation which had been passed onto her: Mary has a vision of the Lord (unfortunately, some pages are missing here) and continues the explanation, which provokes a violent reaction in Andrew and above all in Peter: “So then, ‘he spoke in private (Jesus) with a women before doing so with us and the others, in secret?’ Then, Mary burst into tears and said to Peter ‘my brother, what are you thinking of? Do you think only I have had these thoughts or I am lying about the Saviour?’ Levi spoke and said to Peter: ‘you have always had a fiery temperament – I see you now arguing against a women as though against an enemy. However, if the Lord has made her worthy who are you to reject her?’. ‘Without a doubt, the Lord knows her in an unfailing way. Therefore the Lord has loved her more than us. Instead we should be ashamed and turn ourselves into the Perfect Man, engendering him in ourselves like He has ordered us to do, and proclaim the Gospel, not imposing any other rule or law than those prescribed by the Saviour” (26).

For the moment, we only want to underline the importance of this women in the primitive Church, as well as the troubled and tense situation, because of the prominence that women acquire symbolically in her, since the underlying tension also reflects a controversy with regard to their representation. This tension with the Disciples is personified more strongly in the antagonism between “the Prince of the apostles” and the most significant women in the Gospel, precisely as a consequence of the privileged position of Mary Magdalene, as being the one loved most by Jesus and the object “secret revelations”.

It is very important that we men and women also pay attention to the fact that at the dawn of Christianity, there were difficulties regarding the inclusion of women, personified in Mary Magdalene. And we can also formulate a question: would all this have something to do with why the rest of the books in the New Testament avoid all reference to Mary Magdalene and “the other women” which, undoubtedly, were not forgotten by Jesus nor his Gospel when He ascended into Heaven? Of course, in this way we could better understand what Duns Scotus says regarding Mary, that being a “female apostle”, “is a privilege which disappears out with her” But why did it disappear? Why is her name still kept quiet in the New Testament? How can we understand these tensions and the way to resolve them?

Mary Magdalene was recognised by the Fathers of the Church and oriental liturgy still holds her as “Apostle of the Apostles”, but this recognition does not achieve, in subsequent ecclesiastical practice, any more significance than that of a merely honorary title. We do not see it reflected either in biblical theology or in practice, when women were granted some representation. Certainly tradition and devotion have seen something special in this woman, not always related with the “sinner and repentant”; the iconography also indicates this to us. Curiously, there are representations of the “Assumption of Mary Magdalene” (s. XVIII), in places such as the Sanctuary of Carona near Lugano (27). Further back still (at the end of the Middle Ages) there is the representation that can be viewed in a beautiful altarpiece which is dedicated to her, in which different scenes in her life appear, and in the centre the Assumption of the Saint. This is now in the Museum of the Monastery of Clarisas de Pedralbes in Barcelona.

Another interesting painting, originating from an anonymous person from the Swiss school (16^th Century), is the one which represents Mary Magdalene in the Church of Aix, preaching – a duty which, since the Didascalia, seems to have been repeatedly prohibited for women and is always closely linked with the Ministry of the Priesthood/Presbiter: “because you are not made to teach, oh women!” (III, 190) simply “women, although they may be very learned, should not teach men” (28) so that they are not superior to them.

The influence of this woman must have been enormous. Perhaps, because of her excessive “riskiness” she began to accentuate the “repentant sinner” aspect. But it is clear that we will return to other facets of Mary Magdalene from the Gospel, which is a true source for getting to know her.

7. Heterodoxical Movements

Evidently, it is not difficult to assume that there was also a certain tendency towards divergent opinions on the idea of women and of the greater or lesser protagonism that they were granted in the different, (more or less heterodoxical) movements. We have already referred to the most well-known and wide-spread, the Montanists who not only recognised women as true prophets but also granted them responsibilities, ministries and ordinations. The documentation on these is extensive and relatively well-known.

In addition, in the 2^nd Century, the Quintilianistas or Pepucianos appear who, according to Saint Epiphany, not only attributed the priesthood to laymen but also recommended women as Bishops, Priests and other ecclesiastical positions, according to Chardon, abusing the very words of the Apostle: “In Jesus Christ, there is no distinction between man and woman”. Also, in the 4^th Century the Coridianos rose up, making women and other people priests. We do not want to spend too long on these ordinary “unorthodox women”, but simply put on record their insistence on this definite point. Women appear time after time and their presence often results in conflict. The Valentians allowed women to preside at Eucharists.

Many ordinary unorthodox women granted them a strong leading role and this constituted a major sore point with orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this was not the only case of heresy and “deviationisms” in the Church, nor the only topic of discussion, which divided Christians (29). But there is no doubt that the frequency with which this problem was debated in the heterodoxical movements gave cause for thinking that whenever this topic arose, it was in relation to them, but as we have seen previously, it is not always the case.

It would seem very logical to state that, to start with, women carried out duties, which were later snatched away and prohibited to them, and that there were difficulties and resistance in this process of creating roles and interpreting concrete services. Those prohibitions, apparently, would not always be observed universally or willingly. This could give rise to expressions, bans, and condemnations in a very serious and severe tone.

8. Final Reflections

All this information helps us to reveal quite a lot of facts concerning the evolution of the meaning and practice of the mministry and all other ministries in the primitive communities, as well as the structure and institutions of the Church itself. This, as we are showing, is of great importance, both to allow us to see women much closer to the ministry than they have normally been allowed to be, and to make us realise that a sense of evolution was present right from the beginnings of the Church - in very important respects. On the other hand, we must remember again here the idea from the Ambrosiaster, which seems to state that in the beginning, tasks were not that differentiated between the two sexes, and this becomes even clearer to us from the pages dedicated to the Middle Ages, like the contemporary one to Pope Gelasius. Likewise, the Women Apostles, Female Preachers, “Priestesses”, “Deaconesses”, “Widows ” and even “Women Bishops”, are incredibly relevant.

From the time of Mary Magdalene, we see important involvements of women and we also observe that the relationships between the two sexes were not always peaceful and, as reflected in the apocryphals, it allows us to glimpse a not insignificant confrontation and the imposition of a male-centered approach to the detriment of, and in dismissal of, its opposite number. It is true that Peter did not just have Mary Magdalene and women as opponents; we also know of serious disagreements with Paul and possibly with the “approach of the Beloved Disciple”, but the solutions are brought about in another way.

The heterodoxical movements also express controversies with respect to feminine duties; there are underlying, unresolved tensions.

Footnotes

1. Para datos sobre la organización de las primeras comunidades: TUNC, S. o.c. AGUIRRE, R. La Iglesia del Nuevo Testamento y preconstantiniana, Madrid 1983; AYNARD, L. o.c. CASTILLO, J. M. Los ministerios en la Iglesia, Madrid 1983. VELASCO, R. Iglesia carismática y lo institucional en la Iglesia, Madrid 1983. MOING, J. Services et lieux d’Eglise, Etudes, oct. 1971, etc.

2. Cfr. R. BROWN, La comunidad del discípulo amado, Salamanca 1987, y otras obras del mismo autor.

3. MOING, J. o.c. p. 379.

4. TUNC, S. o.c. pp. 91-92.

5. TUNC S. o.c. p. 61.

6. TUNC, S. o.c. pp. 91-92.

7. JUAN DE DAMAS, en P: LABRIOLLE, Les sources de l’histoire du Montanisme, Fribourg 1913, p. 248.

8. Ibidem, p. 105-106.

9. E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, o.c. 351-352, 361. E. BAUTISTA, La mujer en la Iglesia primitiva, Estella 1993, p. 153. También sobre la profecía S. TUNC.

10. Cfr. documento de los obispos alemanes.

11. R. AGUIRRE, Del movimiento de Jesús a la Iglesia primitiva, Bilbao 1987, p. 65.

12. Cfr. E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, pp. 224 y ss. 346. R. BROWN, "Episkopè and episcopos: the New Testament evidence", Theological studies, 41 (1980), p. 335.

13. Ya citado arriba.

14. A. G. MARTIMORT, Les diaconesses. Essai historique, Roma 1982; "A propos du ministère féminin dans l’Eglise", Bulletin de littérature ecclësiastique. LXXIV, 1973, 103-108. R. GRYSON, "L’ordination des diaconesses d’après les Constitutions apostoliques", Mélanges de sciences religieuses XXXI année. P. H. LAFONTAINE, "Le sexe masculin, condition de l’accès aux Ordres aux 4ème et 5ème siècles", Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1961, n. 31. C. VAGGINI, "L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione greca e bizantina", Orientalia christiana, periodica 40 (1974). S: M. S. LAWRENCE MC KENNA, o.c. A. CARRILLO CAZARES, El diaconado femenino, Bilbao 1971.

l5. D, II, XXVI, 104.

16. ABELARDO, P. P.L. 178, Epístola VIII, pp. 226-256, a la que nos referimos continuamente.

17. E. S. FIORENZA, o.c. p. 358; E. BAUTISTA, o.c. p. 154.

18. HENNECKE, S. New Testament apocryphe, p. 82.

19. ABELARDO, P. P. L. Ep. VIII y Ep. ad Rom. p. 973.

20. La teología bíblica feminista la realiza a fondo, L. AYNARD, La Bible au féminin, París 1990. M. R. D’ANGELO, "Women in Luke Acts". A redactional view. Journal of biblical literature, 109/3 (1990). R. S. FABRIS, La femme dans l’Eglise primitive, París 1987. M. Bertetich, Las mujeres en la vida y escritos de San Pablo, Revista Bíblica, 38 (1976).

21. S. DE OTERO, Los evangelios apócrifos, BAC, Madrid 1988, evangelio de Felipe, n.21.

22. H. LEISEGANG, La Gnose, París 1971.

23. Ibidem; en este evangelio, María Magdalena aparece con rasgos que la identifican con la esposa mística de Jesús.

24. S. HENNECKE, New testament apocrypha, Filadelfia 1965, p. 258.

25. J.DORESSE, El evangelio según Tomás, Madrid, 1989. n. 118. R. KUNTZUMANN, Nag Hammadi, textos gnósticos de los orígenes del cristianismo, Estella 1988, n. 114.

26. A. PASQUIER, L’évangile selon Marie, bibl.copte de Nag Hammadi, Québec 1983.

27. Reproducción en E. MOLTMANN, Le donne che Gesù incontrò, Brescia 1989, p.95.

28. J. TEJADA Y RAMIRO, Colección de cánones de todos los Concilios de la Iglesia española, t. V, Madrid 1855, sesión 67m, p. 417. La reproducción se encuentra también en E. MOLTMANN, o. c. p. 84.

29. C. CHARDON, o.c. t. VI, p. 149, dict. th. cath. o.c.

Translated by Lisa Mullins

Return to the index of the book?

Bottom Bar