(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...Why did ancient Greeks and Romans think that “men” were inherently superior to “women”? Many people (and entire cultures) think that still today, of course, but for now I ain’t goin’ there. I’m interested in understanding this understanding in the ancient world out of which Christianity grew, on the assumption that modern ideas have been handed down to us over the centuries so that most people simply think their views are “common sense,” which, I suppose, they often are, since they are the sense commonly held.
They often think, as a consequence, that they are therefore “naturally right,” and with that I heartily disagree. A majority opinion is not necessarily right or true. The fact that for most of western history a majority of people thought the world came into existence just some thousands of years ago and would last 6000 years does not mean the view was right. Just that it was widely held. Both what is actually “true” and what is truly “natural” is not established by a show of hands.
In any event, in a recent post I discussed the ancient Athenian practice of pederasty, widespread among the cultural elite in classical times — say 6th-4th c. BCE (see my post here: https://ehrmanblog.org/what-is-sexually-unnatural/). Pederasty involved a sexual relation between an adult man and a prepubescent boy (usually a teenager); the man was the “lover” and the boy was the “beloved.” They partnered up (the man was normally already married) with the beloved granting sexual favors to the lover in exchange for being taught the ways of the city — introduced to its social, cultural, and political life. Both then considered this a kind of ancient equivalent of “friends with benefits” (one received sexual and the other social benefits).
One of the things that has long struck me about the texts (and graphic artwork!) that depict the phenomenon is that it certainly appears that the common-sense among adult men was that adolescent boys were far more
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I find the whole of this commentary enlightening. I joined the blog with little interest in the opinions of folks about what Paul or Jesus or the gospel authors , or even Aristotle might have meant. My primary interest is in where the thoughts of today and the sequence of philosophy might have originated and what was the path that ‘common sense,’ morality, and authority might have taken. This particular post found me musing, smiling, and thinking, “Now, that makes some real sense!” Then came the blockbuster, “At least this is what the Roman MEN who wrote the moral essays FOR WOMEN…”. Ha! I hadn’t yet thought to ask, “Where are the writings of the women? What did women, contemporaries of Pleny, ‘Matthew’, etc write?”
What a world in which we live!
Yup, it would be very nice indeed if we had women’s writings. The first Christian writing allegedly by a woman is the diary of Perpetua, and now most scholars don’t think it’s authentic….
:..they were “men” who had been only partially formed in the womb, and thus they were undeveloped or imperfect from birth. They differed from real men in that their penises had never grown, their lungs had not fully developed, and the rest of their bodies never would develop to their full potential. ”
Was this actually written down back then? They really thought of women as a partially formed man?
Yup. You can find discussions in philosophers and physicians. We have writings by ancient gynecologists!
1. Was the thought that women were partially formed men believed among all ancient societies?
2. Was this view held until The Enlightenment?
1. It was the view throughout the sncient Mediterranean societies of Greece and Rome, but I don’t know about other parts of the world. 2. I assume so, but dohn;t recall the exact turning points.
Do we have writings from any early Christians who also held these views?
I don’t know of any physiological discussions (since Xns were writing about other things), but the idea is presupposed in a lot of texts and can help explain a lot of texts that are otherwise really puzzling. You might look at Gospel of Thomas 114 for example (the last saying, about how women must become men to enter the kingdom). Maybe I’ll post on that.
Excuse an off-topic question, but I ran across a verse in the Qur’an (5:75) in which Muhammad implies that Jesus must have been mortal because he ate food (like other mortals). Is he echoing a common claim made against the divinity of Jesus, or is this perhaps an original thought of his? Mark notes Jesus going in the wilderness for 40 days, but Matthew and Luke claim that he fasted for those 40 days: perhaps to make the point that Jesus was no mere mortal? To counter the claim that Jesus was mortal because he ate and drank like other people?
Not sure. I’ve heard fundamentalist pastors claim that they went 40 days without food, so I suppose it’s possible. And the first temptatoin (turn the stones to bread) presupposes that he certainly was starving (unlike a god). The 40 is an obvious symbolic number (Jesus is like Israel, “tested” in the wilderness for 40 years). But I’d say none of the early Christian writers imagined Jesus wasn’t mortal.
cult I grew up in: god man.
but if Jesus [part of triune God] died, whole universe would cease, not just darken & temple barrier ripped.
accordingly, they think no salvation for people before them or at least JN Darby.
Wired:
Former Cult Member Answers Cult Questions From Twitter
WIRED · Oct 7, 2021
https://www.wired.com/video/watch/tech-support-former-cult-member-answers-cult-questions-from-twitter
I’m envisioning a Roman male being transported in time to now. He would be so lost, confused and speechless. He might possibly even discovered how wrong his views were (though I doubt it).
I know a lot of people today who have ancient views of sex, sexuality, and gender and who never do realize how wrong they are. (!)
At least he would be able to help us with our pronunciation of Latin. That would be worth something. And he might even be able to tell us if the Greeks actually used tones…
Sex and gender is the same. The latter being coined in the 20th century to distinguish someone who felt different (mentally) about their sex at birth. Science evidence shows the 23 chromosome being the sex chromosomes and having XX denotes a human female and XY a human male. Not sure on your assertion of men/boys being more beautiful and alluring than women. In contrast, kingly man would adore themselves in jewelry and wear skirts and at times makeup to emulate women. Furthermore to the point, Genesis 6: 1-4, states “when man began to multiply on the earth, the sons of God (angels most likely) saw that the daughters of man were attractive and took as their wives “. Understanding the roles of a man and a woman and their primary purpose have been distorted over time. I agree, that a majority opinion may not always be right, in a few cases, but the weight it carries is more formidable than the minority whether you agree or not. A jury for example, may come to a unanimous conclusion because they agree on what was heard, rather than a judge presiding alone.
It’s odd that you should bring up chromosomes in order to purportedly prove some point. Unless you live under a rock you know that there are various reasons (well understood by science) why XX and XY chromosomes do not always correlate with anatomical sex. And if bodies are more complicated than your crude generalisation allows for, how much more complicated still is the human brain!
You must be agreeing it is a mental issue . When human remains are discovered , they reveal if the person is male or female and * Not what they thought of themselves otherwise. It seems science is only useful when we want to align with our thoughts and discarded on evidence..
Gender identity is an attribute of the mind, certainly. As are all thoughts, feelings and personalities, all of which are empirical phenomena. There is nothing scientific about reducing people to an animated corpse.
” An Attribute of the mind” OK. You are appropriating sex/gender like a costume that you dawn to whatever you feellike that day? I would suggest reading a book by Helen Joyce,”Trans: When Ideology meets reality”. It may help in your understanding.
I’m honestly surprised that Bart has let this go on for so long. Got better things to do than argue with someone who thinks Helen Joyce has anything of merit to say. Anyone tempted to read Helen Joyce would be much better off reading Julia Serano instead.
What about humans with the chromosomes of X, XXX, XXY, XXYY, and many others?
One X is still considered female, often called Turner Syndrome. It is a female genetic disorder. The Y determines the male sex. Three xxx again is female genetic disorder. Many women/girls don’t experience symptoms or only mild ones. Kidney failure or seizures may occur. XXY is again a genetic disorder,often called ,Klinefelter disorder. Males born this way may experience low production of testosterone because of the often smaller testacles than normal.Reduced body or facialhair and so forth. The XXYY is a distinct duplicate or extra copy of a male’s cells.Very rare disorder,more so than others above at a rate of 1:17000-50000,according to NIH. In any case, allof these cases have nothing to do with changing your sex from male or female. Symptoms often include aggressiveness,anxiety, learning disabilities,hyperactivity and depression to name a few. It has nothing to do with sex/gender identity, which are the same. All humans and mammals are classified male or female,period. If you feel the opposite of the sex assigned at birth, it does not make you that sex. I don’t deny the mental factor making you think that, but surrounding yourself with people who affirm your feelings is a social construct and extremely dangerous
Veritas, thank you for the posts you made on this issue. I appreciate your learned, respectful and considered thoughts on the subject. Your voice is important and appreciated. While I haven’t read her book, I have heard Helen Joyce interviewed. Highly recommend her!
Over 2,500 years went by,and here comes Freud,thinking in exactly the same biased manner,announcing that women had ” penis envy”.Soon enough he met his match in Karen Horney,who theorised about men having “womb envy”,men therefore overcompensating by striving for achievement.She’s probably wrong too.
As for famous creative women in antiquity, there was Sapho of Lesbos,from which the term lesbian derives,living in circa 600 BC,writing lyric poetry accompanied by music.Later,circa 400 BC,Aspasia was an intellectual and Pericles’ political advisor.
Hebrew preserves the “penetrator” and “penetrated” idea in the nouns for male and female.Male is zakhar,a term evolved from the Aramaic dakar,which means “he pierced”.In modern Hebrew dakar means “he stabbed”.The word for female is nekevah,derived from the word “nekuvah”,meaning “holed”.Function and anatomy are thus described.
On the lighter side,the HBO phenomenal series Rome tells of two very powerful and influential matrons,Atia and Servilia.Is this plausible historically?
Finally,I wonder if there is any study of the possible trauma to the adolescents lovers in this Greek pederasty system.It makes me think of the “castrati” of Baroque opera,adolescents castrated,sometimes sold by their parents,for the sake of their soprano voice being preserved, since women were forbidden to go on stage.
Great post, Bart,very thought provoking.
Yes, there were influential matrons in Rome at the time. It’s a great series, no? And no, we don’t hear of any traumatized boys; they evidently had considerable choice in the matter. In Plato’s dialogues it’s clear that the “lover” had to go out of his way to get a boy to agree to be his beloved.
So, a human being capable of growing another human being from practically nothing to a baby in 9 months is somehow an inferior version of a human being that can’t do this at all. What a messed up philosophy! I realize this is part of the philosophical ancestry of Western Civilization of which I am a product — but still. Wow!
I imagine they would have said that the capacity for pregnancy is itself a mark of servitude, and a kind of consolation prize for being inferior.
Yes, it was based on an observation of nature, and therefore was “scientific” in the sense in which Aristotle was a scientist in his day. The particular observation was that seeds produce things that look like what produced the seeds. They didn’t know about the female ovum. (From ancient writings, a small number of folks do appear to have known about the female’s seed, but those few didn’t believe it played any role in reproduction. The role of the female ovum in reproduction was not conclusively proven until the 19th century). Since it was a human male that was depositing its seed into a female “flowerpot,” the “scientists” of that time expected the seed to produce something that looked like the human male that deposited the seed. When a female was produced, it was assumed that something in the environment had caused a defective man to have been formed instead of a whole man. The most common guess was that the amount of moisture hadn’t been right. Albertus Magnus got this from Aristotle and passed it on to Aquinas. I believe this explanation is from Uta Ranke-Heinemann’s “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.”
I wonder how relations were between ordinary men and women in ancient times compared to the ancient high society. What if the people in 2350 only have the written biographies of todays politicians, Hollywood stars and CEO’s ? I don’t think they present an accurate view of the wildly varying daily lives and foremost intimate relationships between the vast majority of people living in 2023. We are desperately in need of the view of women, children and the majority of ordinary people of ancient times. But i’m afraid that without a time machine we’ll be left wondering.
This really gives context to Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ” Now I understand why the Romans were so suspicious of the Christians. This was some pretty radical stuff in the day. Kind of like preaching against capitalism here in America.
Thanks Bart.
Bill B, MBI Class of 1975
WHOA! Bill: did we know each other at Moody? Send me an email!
Bart,
This is out of left field but thats the way my mind works now that I’m old…for a few days I’ve been thinking about the notion that Yahweh gets jealous. This seems like a weakness to me – and one that the Alpha Male of the entire Universe would surely be beyond.
3 questions:
Do any early Christian intellectuals ever discuss this critically and is it ever brought up as a reason some
(Marcion, etc) may have come to think of Yahweh in unfavorable terms?
Does this concept of the creator God being jealous run counter to Platonic thought in any way?
What are your overall thoughts of this concept of the Supreme being of the entire universe being Jealous?
TY for your time,
SC
This morning I watched a newly released Youtube video from the channel _Cinema Therapy_, exploring how Frodo Baggins from the Lord of the Rings movies exemplifies the concept of honour.
How the same word can be used for both that _and_ something that can be lost by failing to be sufficiently dominant is something I cannot truly claim to understand…