FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-03-2009, 09:05 AM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
... Augustus family law more in detail?
Here's a quick overview

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Council of Elvira was more an exception or a norm?
This was a conference for the south of Spain so local but it influenced the later council of Arles (you can trace canons from one to the other) and featured Hosius, a key player at Nicea, in Church history. This isn't a bunch of hicks off making their own little rules.

And the rules are far from special. They break into "what outsiders you can marry", "when can you move on", "what about sex beyond marriage". The stuff of marriage. Another marriage commonplace - status. They had that too. Christianity was getting more high status people. But what if a Christian girl couldn't find a Christian of the same status. Could she marry an "eligible" gentile? No. No, no.

Quote:
Christian girls are not to marry pagans (gentiles), no matter how few eligible men there are, for such marriages lead to adultery of the soul.
All this still begs the question: when did the notion of "Christian Marriage" take hold? When did a phrase like "only broke the laws of marriage" become unthinkable?
gentleexit is offline  
Old 02-04-2009, 12:27 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berthold View Post
I find it quite plausible (it has been mentioned e. g. by Peter de Rosa) that some of the rather impractical things commanded in the Gospels (such as, "give away all you have") were meant in a context of apocalyptic expectation.

Somehow, life had to go on when apocalypse didn't come.
Right, Paul's celibacy and Jesus' Cynic teachings would have been provisional behaviours until the nearing end of the world

By the mid-2nd C the urgency dissipated, and it's back to the usual rules for the majority of believers
bacht is offline  
Old 02-04-2009, 01:22 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
That Christianity eventually took these Greco-Roman family values on board is not surprising; the social pressures in this direction would have been formidable. Contrast the usually accepted genuine Pauline epistles (especially 1 Corinthians 7 and Galatians 3.28) with the spurious Pauline epistles and their Haustafel passages.

Ben.
Isn't the early Christian challenge to the traditional family deeply related to its apocalyptic/eschatological concerns ?

IE early christians downgraded the passing on of values to the next generation because of their imminent expectations of the Lord's return. I don't think they were putting forward a long-term non-eschatological alternative to the patriarchal household.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 02-05-2009, 05:39 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Durham, NH USA
Posts: 5,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiopen View Post
I wouldn't mind knowing when the founding father's of the US became devout Christians.
The influential US Founders were Deists, not Xns.

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/evdnceofdeismofusfndrs.html
Bob K is offline  
Old 02-05-2009, 06:24 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Isn't the early Christian challenge to the traditional family deeply related to its apocalyptic/eschatological concerns ?
I think it is, yes. Just as I think that the early Roman imperial family values were deeply related to Augustan eschatological concerns.

Quote:
IE early christians downgraded the passing on of values to the next generation because of their imminent expectations of the Lord's return. I don't think they were putting forward a long-term non-eschatological alternative to the patriarchal household.
I agree for the most part (slight modification below), and I suspect that passages such as Micah 7.6 were mined for this kind of eschatological antipatriarchal content.

OTOH, I do not think we can ignore the heavy patriarchal content of the early Roman imperial propaganda, as well as the early Christian reactions against this propaganda in other respects. I think the earliest Christians were playing their antipatriarchal ideas against Rome, not only in a passive sense (none of this matters because God is going to bring the eschaton soon anyway), but also in an active sense (Augustus is not the father [pater patriae]; Yahweh is).

But here is where I might disagree slightly. I think the early Christians were interested in the long term, but they thought that the return of the messiah was going to intervene (IOW, the long term for them was the new heavens and new earth promised by Isaiah, just as the long term for Roman propaganda was the age of Saturn or the golden age). I think they thought of themselves as already living in the way they were going to be living once Jesus returned.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 02-06-2009, 12:08 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
OTOH, I do not think we can ignore the heavy patriarchal content of the early Roman imperial propaganda, as well as the early Christian reactions against this propaganda in other respects. I think the earliest Christians were playing their antipatriarchal ideas against Rome, not only in a passive sense (none of this matters because God is going to bring the eschaton soon anyway), but also in an active sense (Augustus is not the father [pater patriae]; Yahweh is).

But here is where I might disagree slightly. I think the early Christians were interested in the long term, but they thought that the return of the messiah was going to intervene (IOW, the long term for them was the new heavens and new earth promised by Isaiah, just as the long term for Roman propaganda was the age of Saturn or the golden age). I think they thought of themselves as already living in the way they were going to be living once Jesus returned.

Ben.
Hi Ben

If you mean that early Christians exalted celibacy partly as an anticipation of the kingdom in which there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage then I fully agree.

What I'm dubious about is whether or not they had non-celibate alternatives to the patriarchal household, in the sense that in the Ancient World, Sparta, Plato's Republic and the Carpocratians are (arguably) alternatives to the traditional family, and in the modern world the kibbutz for example is an alternative to the traditional family.

What I'm also doubtful about is how far Christian questioning of the traditional family was overtly linked to opposition to Imperial ideology. Among later Christian writers Lactantius for example is strongly hostile to Imperial ideology but also strongly patriarchal.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 02-06-2009, 04:56 PM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
What I'm also doubtful about is how far Christian questioning of the traditional family was overtly linked to opposition to Imperial ideology.
I agree, it's a stretch to make early Christianity celibacy a reaction against Augustus' desire to have upper class Romans breed.

What small cult was a proponent of big happy families? Men of God like Plotinus or Porphyry etc. were hardly family men in a traditional sense. Although, it's funny how so many were portrayed as beloved by children and caring for widows etc. when they took a moment from the skies. You have Iamblichus and Plotinus and way back to Pythagoras, all loved by the kiddies. Reminds me of the "Jesus playing baseball" statuettes sold on some Christian sites.

Quote:
Among later Christian writers Lactantius for example is strongly hostile to Imperial ideology
I don't even think that's true. He went on and on about the ill-ends of Church persecutors and portrayed traditional religion as trivial but he also laid the ground work for the ideology of the "God-ordained" empire. He was (as Jerome said) a better attacker than proponent but the attacks weren't against empire per se. They were against the gods and individual emperors.

Christians probably got family values when they stopped being a selective cult and started being a nation (ala Eusebius' Church History story).
gentleexit is offline  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:33 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleexit View Post
Quote:
Among later Christian writers Lactantius for example is strongly hostile to Imperial ideology
I don't even think that's true. He went on and on about the ill-ends of Church persecutors and portrayed traditional religion as trivial but he also laid the ground work for the ideology of the "God-ordained" empire. He was (as Jerome said) a better attacker than proponent but the attacks weren't against empire per se. They were against the gods and individual emperors.
I meant things like Lactantius' strong pacifism See Love Your Enemies

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 02-07-2009, 12:35 PM   #29
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
I meant things like Lactantius' strong pacifism See Love Your Enemies
I see there's only one comment there and it's me. It's funny how you catch up with yourself!

I think his words of tolerance and pacifism (though his vituperative language towards tradition is far from tolerant) are understandable. His is a small and much maligned sect, that overtly separates itself from "civilization". Once the sect rises, that language falls off. Ambrose's sentiments become the norm. Prudentius' poetry carries the message.

Perhaps "imperial" and "family-values" are two sides of one new shiny coin, the one that superseded a grubby old copper that sported "pacifist" and "celibate".
gentleexit is offline  
Old 02-08-2009, 06:53 AM   #30
vid
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Myjava, Slovakia
Posts: 384
Default

Tertullian:Ad Uxorem contains nice discussion on virginity, christian marriage, etc.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-12.htm
vid is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.