Ilze Stikāne, 1st-year student, MSP, Faculty of Theology, University of Latvia
Women’s impurity – Lev[1] 12:1-8
1 The Lord said to Moses:
2 “Say to the sons of Israel: a woman, if she conceives and gives birth to a boy, is unclean for seven days – unclean just as in the days of her menstruation.
3 On the eighth day, let the boy’s foreskin be circumcised.
4 For thirty-three days let her purify herself from the blood – she shall touch nothing holy and shall not enter the sanctuary until the time of her purification is complete.
5 But if she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean for twice seven days, just as during menstruation, and for sixty-six days let her purify herself from the blood.
6 When the time of her purification for a son or a daughter is complete, let her bring a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove as a sin offering to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting.
7 He shall present them before the Lord, making atonement for her impurity, and she shall be cleansed from her bleeding. This is the law concerning a woman who gives birth to a son or a daughter.
8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, let her take two doves and two young pigeons – one for the burnt offering and one for the sin offering, and the priest shall make atonement for her impurity, and she shall be clean.”
In Judaism, the categories of purity/impurity, which are closely connected with the categories of holiness, occupy a very significant place. The impurity described in Lev 12 belongs to “permissible impurity” – it is permissible because it is a natural and even necessary phenomenon. The impurity described here is connected with sexual relations.[2]But in comparison with other purity/impurity texts, Lev 12 is relatively short and specific. Gerstenberger holds that this may be connected to the fact that men had nothing to do with childbirth and most likely were not even allowed to be near the place where it took place. They had to wait by the tent or somewhere further away until word was brought to them about the child’s birth (Jer 20:15).[3] The pains and sufferings of childbirth are mentioned fairly often in the Bible, but this is the only passage of Scripture that speaks of the impurity of childbirth and the purification after it.[4]Hartley holds that this text describes the rules for the head of the family – how to act at the time when a child has been born.[5]
But why is a woman unclean during childbirth, if God told her that it was her duty (Gen 1:28)? The process of childbirth itself is likened to menstruation (Lev 15:19-24). The woman is unclean for 7 days, as during menstruation, which means that anyone who touches her becomes unclean. After the seventh day she could be touched, but she could not touch holy objects or enter the sanctuary. This is a very typical example of the unclean having to be separated from the clean and the holy.[6] It should be mentioned that nothing is said about the purity/impurity of the midwife. Gerstenberger holds that childbirth has come to be regarded as defilement precisely in a ritual sense, and that this occurred on account of the distance of men from this event. The text was produced as a male priestly perspective on the organization of cultic ritual.[7] Wenham, in turn, stresses that reproduction is important for the preservation of humanity, but that sexual relations render both of its participants unclean (Lev 15:18). This seems somewhat paradoxical, because if bearing children created such impurity, then one could also refrain from it. But it should be mentioned that at the same time the absence of children was perceived as a great misfortune (1 Sam 1) and sometimes even as God’s punishment (Lev 20:20).[8] Rooker concludes that the woman is most likely unclean because she bleeds and this period continues for a longer time, up to 6 weeks. Since menstruation was considered unclean, this was seen as a similar problem, only over a longer period of time. The child is not what would make the woman unclean.[9] Why is bleeding bad? Although there is no specific explanation in the Bible, it is possible to draw parallels with Jewish views on life and death. For Jews, the loss of blood signified something opposite to life and the normal state, and was therefore a reminder of death. A person is not complete when bleeding.[10] Similar views are also represented by Hartley, who stresses precisely the role of bleeding in impurity. That which is not complete is not clean, and the loss of blood renders a person incomplete. The total duration of impurity was 40 or 80 days. Four is a number that symbolizes completeness, thanks to the 4 cardinal directions. It also denotes a social transformation or a completed period of abstinence, such as a fast.[11] However, it seems that in any of these cases the woman ends up in a “restricted” role.
Why is the birth of a daughter the reason for twice as long an impurity for the woman? The text first addresses the case of the birth of a son. This is an important aspect in the ancient world – a son was an heir, a son had value, a son was the cherished dream of every parent.[12] This duration may perhaps be explained by the attitude towards the sexes and their significance that existed in Israel. For example, in Lev 27:2-7, in monetary terms a woman’s value is half that of a man.[13] Hartley stresses that this difference in the duration of purification is most likely connected with the lower status of women in Israelite society. Although women in Israel had a much better situation compared with the neighbouring nations, they were nevertheless of lower standing than men.[14] R. N. Boyce writes that this text applies solely to a society of men, and that it was this society that wrote it and presented it to the rest. It would be different if it had been written by women.[15] J. R. Wegner, a representative of feminism, holds that research has not found a suitable explanation for why this difference in the duration of purity exists, since, for example, the size of the offering for children of both sexes is the same.[16]
The purification offering was meant to cleanse the sanctuary. Although the woman had not gone to the sanctuary, her impurity had nevertheless defiled the altar. The burnt offering was meant to secure the forgiveness of sins and to express gratitude for the birth of the child.[17] On the one hand, the period of purification and its duration are connected with men’s fear of becoming unclean through women. On the other hand, it gives women an opportunity in their own way to recover; they have time to give attention to the infant and to attune themselves psychologically to the new role of mother.[18] Nevertheless, Gerstenberger comes to the conclusion that this text does not really speak about women themselves, but rather supports men’s fear of being “infected” and becoming unclean. It can be said that the male author mentions only those two cases of defilement that directly concern men themselves.[19]
The text provides insight into the sphere of reproduction in ancient Israel – it was something set apart, something in which men were not permitted to take part. The text concentrates on blood and bleeding, which symbolize the incompleteness of the human being. Incompleteness in a cultic sense is impurity. The text reflects the importance of the categories of holiness in Israel’s cultic practice. The differences in the period of purification suggest something about the status of women in Israelite society. The sex of the child seems to provide the best answer for why the period of the mother’s impurity differed. However, there are various opinions, and it is possible that daughters required longer supervision from their mother.
Ilze Stikāne, 1st-year student, MSP, Faculty of Theology, University of Latvia The Acts of Paul and Thecla: Thecla’s “self-baptism” 4.9. “Then they sent in several wild beasts, while she stood with her arms outstretched and prayed. But at the moment when they finished praying, she turned and saw a pit full of water and said: ‘Now is the time for me to wash.’ And she leaped into the water, saying: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize myself / am baptized on the last day.’ And, looking on, the women and the whole crowd cried out, saying: ‘Do not leap into the water.’ The crowd cried out so that even the governor wept, because the seals were about to devour Thecla. But Thecla, on the contrary, leaped into the water in the name of Jesus Christ. But the seals saw a flash of strong lightning, and their dead bodies floated up to the surface of the water. And around her was a cloud of fire, so that the beasts could neither touch her nor see her naked.”[1]
The Acts of Paul and Thecla: a brief retelling
Paul meets Thecla while he is preaching in Iconium. Thecla is a virgin who later becomes a follower of the Gospel preached by Paul. Thecla’s mother and betrothed are troubled by her sudden refusal of the wedding, and it is precisely for this reason that Paul is accused of “persuading virgins not to marry”. After Thecla’s conversation with the governor, her mother curses her and Thecla is sentenced to death – burning at the stake. Thanks to a divine miracle, Thecla is saved from death, and she travels to Antioch together with Paul, who worries that various temptations might still overcome Thecla. Since in Antioch too Thecla refuses yet another proposal, she is once again condemned to death. This time she is brought into a great amphitheatre, where she must fight wild animals. Thecla prays to God and leaps into a pit of water in order to baptize herself. The beasts do not kill her, because she is once again miraculously saved. When she is freed, she returns to Paul. After she announces to Paul that she will go to Iconium to teach others, Paul answers her: “Go and teach the word of God.”[2]
In scholarship, this text has been interpreted in various ways. Some scholars hold that it was written for the needs of men, thereby proving their authority. There are also directly opposite views, namely that a woman may have written this text in order to show that she too can be a preacher of the word of God.[3] As is well known, it is not included in the official canon of the church, but feminist scholarship asks – does this text really tell us nothing about women and their role in early Christianity? The text is wrapped in legend, yet it tells of a woman who has followed in the footsteps of the apostles.[4] But proving the historical events and the truthfulness of this text has also caused scholars no small amount of headaches.[5] It contains similarities with the ancient Greek romance novel, yet it should be noted that the two main characters do not devote their passion to each other, but rather to their faith.[6] It should likewise be noted that the Pauline corpus of Christianity should not be called monolithic. In the Pastoral Epistles it is possible to encounter a denial of the woman as preacher (1 Tim 2:11-12), but in the Acts of Paul and Thecla a completely opposite view can be seen.[7] As J. Barrier writes, “the Acts of Paul and Thecla compete with the Pastoral Epistles on the question of which text more accurately represents what is said in Paul’s letters”.[8]
Innocence in this text is at once something fragile and something powerful. Paul himself does not really believe that Thecla is safe from the outside world until she has received baptism, but Paul does not wish to do it, because he is not certain of Thecla’s choice.[9] It should likewise be mentioned that this preservation of innocence is a complete opposition to the views of the Greco-Roman cultural milieu about the home, the family and how society ought to function. A woman was supposed to marry and bear children.[10] But how does this baptism come about? Before the baptism, Thecla prays to God. What happens during the prayer cannot be said; perhaps it is precisely at this moment that Thecla receives a revelation about what she should do. Miraculously, after this prayer a pit appears beside Thecla, full of water, where, of course, the seals await her, about to kill her.[11] Thereupon Thecla throws herself into the water, saying: “In the name of Jesus Christ – let me be baptized.”
Among the authors there are differences of opinion as to whether Thecla really “baptized herself” or whether it should be translated otherwise. P. Dunn is convinced that the verb “βαπτίζομαι” is to be translated in the passive form, which would require some external force to perform this rite. In that case it is God Himself who performs this baptismal rite. As a woman, Thecla, in the view of the text’s author, is admired for preserving her innocence, for the divine baptism, for holding out against temptations and for preaching the word of God to the pagans.[12] J. Barrier objects to P. Dunn’s views and writes that the verb “βαπτίζομαι” is nevertheless used here in the middle form, and that Thecla “baptized herself”. In his view, this is also attested by the phrase emphasized twice in the text: “Thecla herself leaped into the water.” The further miracles of God are testimony that God defends those who are baptized. What is lacking in this baptismal rite is a presbyter. But Thecla makes the decision that one can do without it, and that it is not God who baptizes her, but God who confirms this baptism as valid.[13]
Both of the variants offered by these authors seem possible and explanatory of the situation. But what ought to be given attention is the figure of Thecla, who acquired great popularity in early Christianity.[14] This baptismal episode is truly unique, because the early texts will rarely provide testimony of a baptism without the participation of a third party. Thecla’s story is overflowing with miracles, but this does not deny the fact that she was faithful to God and gave herself completely to her faith right up to the end of her life. Thecla may have served as a confirmation of male authority, but as the figure of a woman she provides insight into her role in early Christianity. She is faithful, purposeful, persistent and combative on the question of her faith. Thecla is a figure who could offer women comfort about a God with whom direct contact is possible, and this act of baptism is one such confirmation. Since this is a story wrapped in legend, the historical references will not stand as witnesses to the role of women. But that such a text came into being at all could attest that in early Christianity there existed women who devoted their lives to preaching the word of God.
[1] The text in English and Greek can be found in Jeremy W. Barrier, A Critical Introduction and Commentary on the Acts of Paul and Thecla (Fort Worth, TX, 2005), pp. 260 – 261. Translation by Ilze Stikāne.
[2] Foskett, F., Mary, A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2002), p. 104.
[3] For a fuller account of scholars and their ideas, see: Shelly Matthews, “Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2001), pp. 39 – 55.
[4] MacDonald, Y., Margaret, “Rereading Paul: Early interpreters of Paul on Women and Gender”, in Woman & Christian Origins, ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (New York: Oxford University Press, 199), p. 249.
[5] The historical events of the text are questionable, see Barrier, W., Jeremy, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, pp. 29 – 30.
[6] For more on “eros” in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, see Foskett, F., Mary, A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity, pp. 104 – 108. For more on the ancient novel and the Acts of Paul and Thecla, see Barrier, W., Jeremy, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, pp. 24 – 29.
[7] MacDonald, Y., Margaret, Early interpreters of Paul on Women and Gender, pp. 250 – 251.
[8] Barrier, W., Jeremy, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, p. 313.
[9] Barrier, J., W., The Acts of Paul and Thecla, p. 132.
[10] Foskett, F., Mary, A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity, pp. 105 – 106; see also MacDonald, Y., Margaret, Early interpreters of Paul on Women and Gender, pp. 249 – 250.
[11] Barrier, W., Jeremy, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, p. 262.
[12] Dunn, Wallace, Peter, The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century (Cambridge: Queens’ College, 1996), pp. 66 – 68.
[13] Barrier, W., Jeremy, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, pp. 263 – 267.
[14] For several centuries there existed a cult of Saint Thecla; for a fuller account see Davis, J., Stephen, The Cult of St Thecla: A tradition of Women’s Piety in the Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).