Historian: The Church Used To Perform Gay Marriages
Yes, before "marriage (was) between a man and a woman," it was sometimes between two men.
Annalee Newitz writes at io9.com about gay marriages in the year 100 A.D.:
John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages. (He found almost no records of lesbian unions, which is probably an artifact of a culture which kept more records about the lives of men generally.)...How could these marriages have been forgotten by history? One easy answer is that -- as Boswell argues -- the Church reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century to be for the purposes of procreation. And this slammed the door on gay marriage. Church scholars and officials worked hard to suppress the history of these marriages in order to justify their new definition.
Of course, history is more complicated than that. Boswell claims that part of the problem is that we define marriage so differently today that it's almost impossible for historians to recognize 1800-year-old gay marriage documents when they see them. Often, these documents refer to uniting "brothers," which at the time would have been a way of describing same-sex partners whose lifestyles were tolerated in Rome. Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes -- but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
Legal scholar Richard Ante wrote a law journal article explaining that Boswell's book could even be used as evidence for the legality of gay marriage, since it shows evidence that definitions of marriage have changed over time. He describes some of Boswell's evidence of these same-sex rites in the early first millennium:
The burial rite given for Achilles and Patroclus, both men, was the burial rite for a man and his wife. The relationships of Hadrian and Antinous, of Polyeuct and Nearchos, of Perpetua and Felicitas, and of Saints Serge and Bacchus, all bore resemblance to heterosexual marriages of their times. The iconography of Serge and Bacchus was even used in same-sex nuptial ceremonies by the early Christian Church.
Annalee Newitz comments at the site:
There's one thing I've always wondered about this transitional period between a west dominated by the Roman Empire vs. a west dominated by various flavors of Christianity. Maybe some historians among you can answer. I wonder how much anti-homosexual sentiment in the Bible might be rooted in anti-Greco-Roman sentiment. In other words, was the anti-gay stance a rejection of this imperialist culture where homosexuality was accepted and even celebrated? Basically a political stance against the oppressors, rather than a moral stance against a set of sexual acts?
A response from worldsmiths (much of which corresponds with some of what I know from my mother's studying the Bible as literature for 40 years):
It's a bit more complicated than that: as a historian, we have to look at the Bible as a historical document, or rather a compilation of various historical documents. There's also the problem of translation - what ancient, working-class Greek and Aramaic written 2000 years ago ACTUALLY Meant is somewhat open to interpretation. Here's the breakdown simply put, though:First) The books which make up the Christian Bible's Old Testament condemn certain homosexual acts, but they do so in the context of special rules for the Israelite peoples which were meant to set them aside from their neighbors in the Levant, who were at least nominally accepting of various forms of what we would now call homosexuality. These rules or regulations were never meant to apply to the whole of mankind, but for the specific, 'special' people the books were addressed to at the time. There is, notably, no reference to the practices of people living outside of the Israelites' immediate vicinity: the practices of Greece and Rome do not feature. One more interesting note: due to the problem of translation, Biblical and non-Biblical historians are unable to agree about whether or not the Old Testament rules were meant to prohibit all forms of homosexual behavior, or the specific forms of ritualistic homosexuality and homosexual prostitution associated with the near-by pagan religions of their neighbors. Remember, the Old Testament also endorses the Israelites taking female sex slaves from conquered or defeated enemies - what modern Jews and Christians believe the Old Testament says may not be correct.
Second) There is even more disagreement about what the books of the New Testament mean when they condemn homosexuality. Non-Biblical Historians studying the texts are pretty sure the writings of apostles like Paul were meant to specifically condemn the practice of ritual or temple prostitution by males and females straight or gay. Biblical Historians tend to interperate the text as a blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexuality. In this case, the Jews were definitely aware of and interacting with Imperial Roman Civilization, which completely accepted the discreet practice of some forms of homosexual behavior (as long as it wasn't someone who could be considered a head of state or a father of the people - being on the submissive side of homosexuality was seen as emasculating.) and their rather specific reference to temple prostitution would seem to suggest that the early church fathers were not so much against homosexuality as they were against temple prostitution.
When I was doing my geneological research I came across an interesting "adoption" to explain why my great-grandfather went by two different last names. He was adopted at the age of 20 into a family with 8 children and treated "as one of their own" staying so devoted that he lived with his father until his death. At that time, my great-father took his equal share of the inheritance and started his own family at age 45.
When I read this I thought hmmm. Adopted and living with the family at 20 and then being the one to remain in the household with "dad"; yeah that's normal.
Jen at July 30, 2013 6:20 AM
When I read this I thought hmmm. Adopted and living with the family at 20 and then being the one to remain in the household with "dad"; yeah that's normal.
Posted by: Jen at July 30, 2013 6:20 AM
This was completely normal in the 19th century. Large extended family units were common, and most men did not marry until they were financially stable enough to provide for their own family.
Death caused many reconfigurations, and adoptions.
The author of the article has completely muddied the historical record in order to suggest that Christianity sanctioned gay marriage.
In 100AD there was no Christian church. This was the Roman empire and it was Pagan.
Isab at July 30, 2013 7:17 AM
Interesting.
wtf at July 30, 2013 10:16 AM
"being on the submissive side of homosexuality was seen as emasculating."
Next thing to be all butthurt about, after marriage is squared away.
Phil Spengler at July 30, 2013 12:09 PM
I've heard this before. While these union ceremonies certainly existed, arguments that I've heard deny that these were gay marriages. They were supposedly to show loyal and steadfast friendship, but not truly a marriage.
Even if that were the case, I'd have a hard time believing that gay people wouldn't use the ceremony as a cover for their marriage.
Patrick at July 30, 2013 12:42 PM
I find it hilarious that the partisans wanting to argue that gay marriage is historical say that "we're so deeply embedded in our current social climate that we can't appreciate what REALLY happened back then".
...and then prove it, by being so deeply embedded in current assumptions that when they see a deep male friendship 2,000 years ago they assume it must have been a gay marriage.
Yes, homosexuality has likely always existed.
Yes, it's no skin off my nose if two men want to get married in the year 2013.
But, no, society in the year 13 was not all that similar to Western society in the year 2013. Read Roman history, read Germanic history, read the Icelandic sagas. Deep male bonding happened, adults adopted other adults to build patronage networks, etc.
Things are more different than people realize.
TJIC at July 30, 2013 2:05 PM
"In 100AD there was no Christian church. This was the Roman empire and it was Pagan"
Isab, you clearly don't know anything about Church history or Christianity. Paul was writing to various congregations of the Church all over the Roman Empire.
By your logic if the Roman Empire was pagan, there couldn't have been any Judaism.
Jim at July 30, 2013 3:54 PM
"Things are more different than people realize."
All those manly ancient civilizations tended to be pretty homo. Men fucking each other was not unusual. Especially older man/ young boy combo.
It's a pretty new development to marry someone you love. In fact a woman doing it was pretty much unheard of. You could marry and fuck on the side. I guess that was the old way of 'dating'.
So I guess you could say what's new is marrying one person for love. I think this is why divorce is so high.
Ppen at July 30, 2013 7:16 PM
The first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity was Constantine in 313 AD.
At this time Christianity became a legal religion. Two hundred years earlier is was a small and struggling illegal sect, and had no official impact or relevance to Roman society.
It was one of many hundreds of religious cults existing in Rome at the time.
Catholics generally like to claim that Christianity originated as a powerful force shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, (and that Peter was the first Pope) but Church history has many historical claims that do not exist independently in any contemporary Roman records.
As I understand it there are no authenticated Christian documents from 100AD in existence. So I find the claim that there are Christian " marriage documents " validating " gay marriage" from that era to be an extraordinary claim.
Isab at July 30, 2013 8:09 PM
"So I guess you could say what's new is marrying one person for love. I think this is why divorce is so high."
Bingo!
wtf at July 30, 2013 8:10 PM
The "Old Testament" revisionism is complete hogwash.
Some obvious points:
- there are 2 different verses prohibiting homosexuality - one general, and one explicitly mentioning the "ritual homosexuality" this author is dithering about. Deuteronomy 23:18 is clearly referring to temple prostitutes. While Leviticus 18:22 is clearly part of a general code of sexual morality... it always pays to read the text before spouting.
- the Torah explicitly FORBIDS the sexual exploitation of female captives... the woman is either to be married - with all obligations to support her, and no possibility of divorce - or to be set free. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is explicitly changing the prevailing custom of "raping the women" during war... again, it's SOOOOO much easier to diss Jewish morality if you make it up as you go along.
- the sexual morality outlined in the Torah is clearly intended to apply to gentiles - the corruption of the Canaanites and other peoples is repeatedly cited as the reason for their military defeat or cultural disappearance. The obvious example is - d'oh - Sodom.
/headslap
Ben David at July 31, 2013 10:46 AM
The "Old Testament" revisionism is complete hogwash.
Some obvious points:
- there are 2 different verses prohibiting homosexuality - one general, and one explicitly mentioning the "ritual homosexuality" this author is dithering about. Deuteronomy 23:18 is clearly referring to temple prostitutes. While Leviticus 18:22 is clearly part of a general code of sexual morality... it always pays to read the text before spouting.
- the Torah explicitly FORBIDS the sexual exploitation of female captives... the woman is either to be married - with all obligations to support her, and no possibility of divorce - or to be set free. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is explicitly changing the prevailing custom of "raping the women" during war... again, it's SOOOOO much easier to diss Jewish morality if you make it up as you go along.
- the sexual morality outlined in the Torah is clearly intended to apply to gentiles - the corruption of the Canaanites and other peoples is repeatedly cited as the reason for their military defeat or cultural disappearance. The obvious example is - d'oh - Sodom.
Ben David at July 31, 2013 10:47 AM
No, the sexual morality is not clearly intended to apply to gentiles.
Sodom was destroyed, not for homosexuality, but for gang rape. Huge difference.
Cat at July 31, 2013 6:06 PM
Now here is a thought:
Why was homosexuality mentioned in the Biblecopy;?
Because homosexuality only started in the 1950's or because it was happening in 50 A.D.?
Jim P. at July 31, 2013 8:12 PM
Leave a comment