Skip to main content

  It is amazing that we are seeing such contentious arguments about marriage right now.  Obama makes a change of public position, Mitt Romney pretends that Mormons never held scriptural positions on marriage that allowed, rather actually favored polygamy.   Obama's statement unleashed a torrent of radical and angry claims by politicians from the right and religious leaders.  Anthropologists know that the argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is false, we find in some people, among Tibetans for example, where they practice polyandry or the marriage of one woman to several brothers, or among the Nuer where two women may be pressed by their kinsmen to marry and one take on the role of man to maintain the male number.
   In general one has to wonder why Christians are making such a fuss about gay marriage.  The main argument is that it would undermine marriage for Christians.  Blaming some one else for your own failures is an old method of avoiding responsibility for your actions, but in the face of terrible divorce rates in the most fundamentalist Christian states and communities it seems just silly (see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/....).  However, since we hear almost every day that marriage is a central rite for Christians and that a marriage between a man and a woman is a necessary requirement it is right that we should look at scripture to find out the basis for these claims.  The basis, however, does not exist.  In fact, early Christians were exhorted not to marry.  In 1 Corinthians 7:20 of the King James version Paul tells Christians, "Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called."  The implication of this letter for Paul is that he is trying to settle the flock concerning the way of life people should follow in the period of time before Christ's return and in Paul's life it was considered immanent.  

 

 In 1 Corinthians 7:25 Paul states, "Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.  I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be free.  Are you free from a wife?  Do not seek marriage."  He goes on, "But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin.  Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as if they had none."  Again Paul is insisting that the Return is upon the Christians in a manner very near. There is another reason, the church at this time was a community of equals in both property and rank.  To marry meant that one had the "trouble" of providing for children and a house and a career or livelihood.  To Paul this meant a distraction from commitment to the growing needs of the community to teach and spread the message.  He remarks on this in 7:33 "...but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided."  This division was seen as a weakness of members and thus it was considered necessary not only for Christians not to marry but not to have children.  Strangely he invokes his own example of being both celibate and unmarried for people, but then suggests that widows if they cannot control themselves should marry.  Most other Bible translations have these same statements from Paul with little variation, like the Jerusalem Bible for example.  I discuss this in more detail given the historical context of the early Christian church and the suppression of various sects until the rise of the Catholic sect at: http://www.dailykos.com/....

  If we look deeper, however, and at other authors of the early Christian fathers we find a more theoretical concept of why marriage was considered "filthy" as Tertullian referred to it, but actually a device of the devil.  St. Jerome argued that people had to avoid the pleasures of the world not only to protect them from temptation, but sex and marriage were seen as a direct means by which the devil controlled the world and prevented Christ's return.  A great text on this is by religious scholar Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the beginnings of Christianity, Beacon Press, 1957 (various editions published in the 60s).  Here the devil has set himself up as god and leads people into creating more people thus dividing the holy "staircase" of light that would direct the savior to earth to save the world.  The early Christian community was  heavily influenced by Manichean thought and that of Zoroaster.  The writings of Marcion clearly oppose the devil (demiurge) vs the savior who is aided by a female figure often seen as the Jewish goddess in various names but also rarely as Mary.  In the lost Gospels of Mary there was supposed to have been elaboration on this, but the last official discussion - saved in Lewis Ellies du Pin's (1691) summaries of the early Church councils - is bare.  Du Pin's work is available in English translations in most university libraries with seminaries.
  There was an impression in the first century of our era, that if you married and had children you were just guilty of falling for temptation, but those who encouraged people to marry and have children were actually the agents of the devil acting to prevent Christ's return.  The practical value of this can be seen in the fact that Roman civil authority had long been based on the clan, the family and the production of children through the patrilineages of the tribes.  Undermining this authority went far to bring success to the Christian community and end their control by the state.

As an anthropologist and religious scholar I have written on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the evolution of scripture. The nature and the composition of the family is not part of that body of literature, especially regarding the New Testament. Later additions were made to satisfy the needs of people, and once Christianity became the state religion in the 4th Century of our era, marriage again became a central part of dogma. 
  There are many versions of the New Testament, see Rudolf Bultmann's fine summary analysis, History of the Synoptic Tradition, English translation 1963.  Most are later versions, early Medieval, written by Church officials after Constantine completed the official installation of Christianity as the religion of the empire, evolved over several hundred years.  An example can be found in  Luke, chapter 11, the Apostle says that Christ stated of marriage, "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but those who are deemed worthy to attain That World (Heaven) and the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage."You have to remember that in the first years after Christ's death his followers thought he would return in his lifetime.  That was the promise and expectation.  There was no need for marriage or children and in fact, many early Christian communities, like the earlier Essenenes (see discussions on the Qumran community and its relation to John the Baptist)refused marriage and lived in separate sex lodgings.

Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D. 
Dept. of Anthropology 
San Francisco State University
See my article with T.B. Kahle on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Nature at: http://www.nature.com/... and
my article in Radiocarbon on the varieties of scriptural writings and dating at:
Caldararo, N. "Storage Conditions and Physical Treatments Relating to the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Radiocarbon 37 (1995).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The shame that humans continue to have around (5+ / 0-)

    the enjoyment of sexual pleasure is a sad thing to me.

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Mon May 14, 2012 at 10:47:49 AM PDT

  •  Who Cares What The Bible Says? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LouisMartin, DontTaseMeBro, maf1029

    Every time someone brings the bible into a discussion (whether well-intentioned or not) on US civil rights, you will get as many interpretations of what the scriptures 'really' mean as you have commentators.  None of these commentators can be proven wrong and none of them can be convinced to change their opinion.
    I really don't care what the bible says.  Any time someone uses the bible as justification for something that is objectively, morally wrong, they should be called out for their source material.  They should be challenged to provide an objective, reliable source other than the bible.  Period.

    Ezra Klein is my "freebie"

    by Skylarking on Mon May 14, 2012 at 10:56:46 AM PDT

  •  What do you think of John Boswell's work? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, maf1029

    The Yale scholar developed a thesis that the early Christian church actually had no problem with gay marriage.  This, if it is in fact true, pretty well undermines the evangelical Biblical literalist predicate for being against gay marriage.  

    But this isn't trotted out very much, so I wonder if this is considered solid research?

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/...

    I think it is important to delve into the history of Christianity and to see what can be understood about what Jesus really taught because this is the underpinning that has motivated millions of people and caused hundreds of millions of dollars to be invested in all kinds of organizing.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:33:35 AM PDT

    •  Boswell and SSUIPME* (0+ / 0-)

      .... sadly, his work is not accepted across the board among antiquities scholars for "reasons" including:

      --- he doesn't document his sources well enough
      --- he documents too thoroughly
      --- he was gay
      --- he died of AIDS
      --- he was pushing an agenda
      --- he didn't have a clear agenda
      --- the Catholic Church didn't approve
      --- he's trying to superimpose modern standards onto the past
      --- he's not taking modern standards into account
      --- he's just not right

      You get the picture.
      Generally among most mainstream antiquities scholars, there still exists an anti-gay bias, amounting to "There were no homos in antiquity, except for the Greeks who bufu'd little boys. Oh, and the Romans, who were just horny, and we don't talk about that."
      That's why Boswell's thoroughly documented, well-examined, cogently explained research is usually dismissed.  

      *(SSUIPME = Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe)

      "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, #894

      by maf1029 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:30:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ithink (0+ / 0-)

      he is probably right in a way, the imperative for not having children among the early Church would have been one directive.  The other is that there is really no condemnation in the Bible or Torah of homosexuality.

  •  Excellent diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Claiming that marriage is somehow a "central rite" for Christians has, of course, no basis in scripture or in church history or dogma as you point out.

    The fatal flaw in Luther's idea of Sola Scriptura (that all things necessary to salvation can be found in scripture alone) which continues to inform much of the Protestant world is the fact that the Church predates the canon of NT scripture by quite a bit--about three-plus centuries. The fetishization of biblical literalism as we see among some evangelical/fundamentalist/literalist sects without the authority of the church seems to me to be an historical anomaly.

    What is a "central rite", historically, is the Eucharist--something which is decidedly not central to many charismatic and evangelical sects [save the Christian Church(Disciples of Christ)] or to biblical literalist denominations. I find it interesting that a Protestant sect such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America* in which the Eucharist is central has emerged as supportive of LGBT rights and equality (and clergy) while, say, the Southern Baptist Convention has not.
    Roman Catholic dogma is even more "forgiving" on homosexuality (though hardly progressive). Anglicans, in the form of the Episcopal Church in the United States and in several other provinces have also been in the forefront of this. It occurs to me that those who would take the bible literally and as the only authority, discounting church history and evolving views, would naturally lag behind churches with a more cohesive institutional authority which can, and does, change over time however slowly. Again, even reading what the RC church has to say on homosexuality in general is decidedly more liberal than the views of say, Hagee or Robertson.

    Frankly, I think it would behoove liberal Christians and the media as well, to make it clear when discussing "Christian" reaction to LGBT issues to point out that the views of the large numbers of evangelical Christians who oppose LGBT rights are based on a relatively young and ahistorical view of the authority of scripture, and one which emerged as a direct reaction to liberal and more scholarly trends in hermeneutics.

    *Churches like the United Church of Christ, from a Reformed heritage and not particularly Eucharistically centered have also embraced a modern view of LGBT equality.

    Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat equalitymaine.org

    by commonmass on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:45:17 AM PDT

  •  I have a question: (0+ / 0-)

    Why are we considering the scribblings of semi-literate Bronze Age goatherders (who thought bats were birds) when debating issues affecting our modern society?
    I mean, besides the obvious ("know thy enemy" and so forth).

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, #894

    by maf1029 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:34:24 PM PDT

    •  I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maf1029

      think it is important to show that they do not know their own dogma's foundations.

      •  Well, maybe to us.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bonnie B

        And it's also gratifying to watch theological mental midgets get handed their own cultic mythology and dogma back to them.
        I just don't know that it does any good, beyond the gratification of people who resent having their lives run by others' "faith choices."

        "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, #894

        by maf1029 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:29:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site