Stoic Household Theory and Clement’s Citations from Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5
We have seen how Clement’s dictum that “women are to cultivate the philosophical life the same as men” echoes a passages in Plato’s Republic. An even closer parallel is found in the first century C.E.
Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus. Two of his surviving discourses are devoted to this subject. Discourse 3 gives the following report:When someone asked [Musonius] if women too should study philosophy (^iXooo^- rjTEOv) he began to discourse on the theme that they should.... Women as well as men, he said, have received from the gods the gift of reason... by which we judge whether a thing is good or bad, right or wrong Moreover, not men alone, but women too, have
a natural inclination toward virtue and the capacity for acquiring it, and it is the nature of women no less than men to be pleased by good and just acts and to reject the opposite of these. If this is true, by what reasoning would it ever be appropriate for men to search out and consider how they may lead good lives, which is exactly the study of philosophy, but inappropriate for women? (Discourse 3, Hense 8:15-9:16)[1244]
In an article entitled “Transformation of the Household Theory between Roman Stoics, Middle Platonism, and Early Christianity,” Ilara Ramelli sets this text in the context of changes in Stoic ideas about the family that begin with Middle Stoics such as Albinus and are evident especially in the Roman Stoics Musonius and Hierocles.[1245] She argues that the view of these Stoics that the philosophical life, i.e., the life of virtue, is important for
women as well as men is related to a change in the evaluation of marriage. The common life of spouses no longer belongs to the αδιαφορα (“indifferent things”), as for the Old Stoics, but comes closer to the category of “the goods of the soul,” which was formerly restricted to virtue.
Wives approach the status previously reserved for philosophical friends, and the primary aim of marriage is now described as fellowship.[1246] [1247] In short, marriage comes to be understood as a school for the common pursuit of vir. 42tue.
Clement’s indebtedness to Musonius in our passage is suggested most obviously by his use of the same verbal adjective φιλοσοφητεον to describe the virtuous activity of women. In addition, he agrees with Musoni- us on several other points: in presenting philosophy as primarily a matter of ethics,[1248] in his emphatic claim that virtue is the same for men and wom- en,[1249] and in his assertion that women can share in all the virtues, even the typically male virtue of ανδρεία, courage.[1250] Both Musonius and Clement also point out that philosophy enables women to endure hardship and not fear death.[1251]
At the end of his first discourse on the philosophical life of women, Musonius takes up a possible objection:
Yes, but I assure you, some will say that women who associate with philosophers are bound to be arrogant for the most part and presumptuous, in that abandoning their own households and turning to the company of men they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms, when they ought to be sitting at home spinning. I should not expect the women who study philosophy to shirk their appointed tasks for mere talk any more than men, but I maintain that their discussions should be conducted for the sake of their practical application.[1252]
To put this worry to rest, Musonius goes to great lengths to argue that philosophy helps women better perform their assigned tasks of running the household, working with their hands, and serving their husbands.[1253]
Clement does not argue this point; instead he turns to the biblical witness, citing once again from 1 Corinthians 11, this time verse 3 (“the Lord is head of the man and the man is head of the women”) and verse 7 (the man is the “image and glory of God”). He goes on to quote the household codes from Eph 5:21-29 and Col 3:18-4:1, which also call the husband the “head” of the wife.[1254] Clement explains that “head” means “the ruling faculty” (63.5).
He implies but does not say explicitly that the clear statement of sexual hierarchy in these texts obviates the problem of uppity women in the church. But there is more in these biblical texts than traditional hierarchy, and it is worth noting that Clement includes in his quotation a conflation of Ephesians 5 verses 25 and 28 that reads: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”[1255] He also quotes the similar command in Col 3:19.[1256] [1257] Although he does not comment on these texts, it seems likely that he quotes them not only to support sexual hierarchy within marriage but also to underscore what men and women have in common, their cooperation in the life of vir. 52tue.
Clement’s way of citing from Colossians 3 also suggests that he sees more in this text than a reinforcement of traditional societal roles. It is worth noting that he quotes Col 3:11 (“where there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free”) after the household code from Col 3:18-4:1, thus giving it an emphatic position. This verse parallels Gal 3:28 in its claim that in Christ such fundamental divisions of human society have no meaning. The exact referent and significance of the word ouou (“where”), with which the verse begins, is not clear; it is explained in various ways by modern interpreters. The NRSV interprets it in light of Col 3:10 (“and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator”), translating “in that renewal.” Others explain the referent as the “new self” or the “new humanity”[1258] or the church.[1259] Sumney translates “in this new creation” and explains:
The adverbial particle [οπού] refers back to the new self that believers have put on (v.
10) and implies that believers have been brought into an existing reality. Such a way of speaking fits with the other spatial language that Colossians uses for eschatological realities.... Believers have been incorporated into a reality in which the normal distinctions made in the world no longer have primary significance.[1260]While contemporary scholars generally argue that “where” in Col 3:11 refers to a present reality, a new mode of existence brought about by Christ, Clement suggests a different interpretation of οπού, when he combines the verse with the last verse of the household code, Col 4:1:
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven (Col 4:1), where there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all (Col 3:11). (Strom. 4.8.65.3-4)
In what follows Clement goes on to quote the catalogue of Christian virtues from Col 3:12-15. But first he makes an observation that clarifies his interpretation of Col 3:11: “The earthly church is the image of the heavenly church, as we pray ‘May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matt 6:10).”[1261] What this seems to mean is that in the future life the divisions and hierarchies of this life will be overcome, and that knowledge of this should inform Christians’ attitudes in the present, if not their social hierarchies.[1262]
G.