Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-07-2009, 01:00 PM

This article is making the rounds of email lists:

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Quote:

. . . St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

The source of this appears to be Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (or via: amazon.co.uk) by John Boswell. (Also on Google Books.)

There is also a collection of essays reacting to Boswell's thesis: The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Review by Camille Paglia of Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe

Quote:

However, in my opinion, this book, like Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, demonstrates that Boswell lacks advanced skills in several major areas, notably intellectual history and textual analysis. The embattled complexities of medieval theology and the ambiguous nuances of language and metaphor familiar to us from great literature seem beyond his grasp. Speculative reasoning is not his strong suit.

Boswell argues that homosexual marriages of some kind were widely accepted in classical antiquity and that the medieval church simply continued the pagan practice. But his weak, disorganized, and anecdotal material on Greek and Roman culture never proves such marriages existed outside the imperial Roman smart set, whose cynical "Dolce Vita" decadence he does not see. Furthermore, he disproportionately stresses evidence from isolated or marginal regions, such as post-Minoan Crete, Scythia, Albania, or Serbia, all of which had unique and sometimes bizarre local traditions.

There is a more positive review (actual a reaction to a negative review) here.

John_Boswell notes:

Quote:

Rites of so-called "same-sex union" (Boswell's proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a "spiritual" and not a "carnal" one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell's text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or "blood brothers".

Is there any more current information on how well Boswell's thesis has stood up?

From the reviews, a large part of Boswell's argument centers around an accurate look at historical marriages, involving loveless financial arrangements between two clans for the purpose of preserving property and producing children on the side. If marriage was such an unfortunate institution, what would be the point of same sex marriage?

In addition, my impression was that marriage was not an especially favored institution in early Christianity, and many references to marriage are symbolic (bride of Christ and all).

andrewcriddle · 07-07-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This article is making the rounds of email lists:

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Quote:

. . . Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

It may be relevant that there was a determined effort by Christian writers. starting with Origen's Commentary on the Song of Songs, to "rescue" eros words (which are entirely absent in the New Testament and in the Septuagint of Song of Songs) as appropriate for spiritual (ie non-physical) love.

If the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus refers to the Martyrs as "erastai", then this should probably be understood in this context.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 07-07-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus refers to the Martyrs as "erastai", then this should probably be understood in this context.

Andrew Criddle

I've been trying (without success) to confirm that Boswell does claim that Sergius and Bacchus are called "erastai". According to wiki Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus the claim is on p 154 of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 07-07-2009, 09:40 PM

Scans of the Greek text might be found in Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca (BHG) which is available as a RAR file here:
http://community.livejournal.com/sal...gie/52260.html

I think the older Greek text is BHG #1624, and a later one is #1625, per
http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/sergorig.html

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus refers to the Martyrs as "erastai", then this should probably be understood in this context.

Andrew Criddle

I've been trying (without success) to confirm that Boswell does claim that Sergius and Bacchus are called "erastai". According to wiki Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus the claim is on p 154 of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

Andrew Criddle

Nero's Boot · 07-08-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This article is making the rounds of email lists:

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

It may be relevant that there was a determined effort by Christian writers. starting with Origen's Commentary on the Song of Songs, to "rescue" eros words (which are entirely absent in the New Testament and in the Septuagint of Song of Songs) as appropriate for spiritual (ie non-physical) love.

If the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus refers to the Martyrs as "erastai", then this should probably be understood in this context.

Andrew Criddle

Why does your God hate gays? What explanation can cover why a pair of monogomous gay male lovers, dedicated to their faith, cannot be what they most likely were? No believer has ever explained why homosexuality is "sinful."

--there are gay Christians, no matter how much you want to deny it NB

Tristan Scott · 07-08-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nero's Boot

Why does your God hate gays?

I heard that he caught them peeking at his wiener on the cieling of the Cistene Chapel and they were actually giggling.

Haven't got confirmation so it may just be one of those unsubstantiated claims.

Nero's Boot · 07-08-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nero's Boot

Why does your God hate gays?

I heard that he caught them peeking at his wiener on the cieling of the Cistene Chapel and they were actually giggling.

Haven't got confirmation so it may just be one of those unsubstantiated claims.

LOL That's about the extent of it, I think!

--BibleGod has some severe psychoses centered around sex and sexuality NB

Toto · 07-08-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nero's Boot

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be relevant that there was a determined effort by Christian writers. starting with Origen's Commentary on the Song of Songs, to "rescue" eros words (which are entirely absent in the New Testament and in the Septuagint of Song of Songs) as appropriate for spiritual (ie non-physical) love.

If the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus refers to the Martyrs as "erastai", then this should probably be understood in this context.

Andrew Criddle

Why does your God hate gays? What explanation can cover why a pair of monogomous gay male lovers, dedicated to their faith, cannot be what they most likely were? No believer has ever explained why homosexuality is "sinful."

--there are gay Christians, no matter how much you want to deny it NB

I don't think god has much to do with this.

Early Christians thought that the flesh was corrupt, and all sex was somewhat sinful unless devoted to some other purpose, such as creating new Christian babies, and only then when performed without too much passion or "lust." Consider what Augustine wrote about the sin of concupiscence. It was only recently that Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body decided that sex merely for pleasure between heterosexual married people was sort of ok.

arnoldo · 07-08-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Early[ gnostic? ] Christians thought that the flesh was corrupt, and all sex was somewhat sinful unless devoted to some other purpose, such as creating new Christian babies, and only then when performed without too much passion or "lust."

Aren't you presenting the philosophy of the Gnostics? Furthermore, it was more an issue of hubris rather than lust according to Daniel B Levine article entitled "Hubris in Josephus's Ant. 1-4;he writes

Quote:

Whereas the Septuagint calls homosexual intercourse "abomination" (Lev 20:13), Josephus groups that crime with bestiality and sex with menstruating woman, and calls them all hubris (Ant 3.275). This grouping is not original with Josephus, as we note by reading Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3-43, where satiety leads to sexual desire for animals.

Nero's Boot · 07-08-2009, 10:40 AM

Arnoldo:

It doesn't matter which authority came up with the notion; what matters is that the Abrahamic faiths adopted it as gospel. Homosexual sexual activity hurts no one, and, like heterosexual couplings, can and often will result in life-long, loving relationships.

--no amount of Hand-Wavium can hide the fact your religion embraces some very nasty ideas NB

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2009, 10:40 AM	#10
Nero's Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: West Virginia Posts: 1,234	Arnoldo: It doesn't matter which authority came up with the notion; what matters is that the Abrahamic faiths adopted it as gospel. Homosexual sexual activity hurts no one, and, like heterosexual couplings, can and often will result in life-long, loving relationships. --no amount of Hand-Wavium can hide the fact your religion embraces some very nasty ideas NB

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.