sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-08-02 08:19 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-08-02 08:19 am
were transpeople a significant element in the early Christian movement?
I now think this was a significant matter of contention in the early Church.
1. Jesus defended John the Baptist against the accusation by his detractors that he was malakos, or "soft/effeminate." Rather than denying the charge, Jesus argues that the real issue was the fact that John was not working as a "palace prostitute."
2. On top of that there is this mysterious passage in Matthew:
[Matthew 19:11] But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
[12] "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
This occurs just after a discussion about marriage, in which Jesus contradicted the law of Moses. So the traditional interpretation is that "eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs" refers to people who choose not to marry and remain celibate. If that is what Jesus meant, then he should have said that. As it happens, at the time of Jesus there was a class of eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs -- the gallae.
However, could they have been said to make themselves eunuchs "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"? That really depends on what the phrase basileia tou ouranou means.
Some Christians -- those who wrote the Gospel of Matthew at least -- put far more stock on what one did and how one lived, than on what one believed. The author of John's Gospel took a different view of course; these opposing views appear to give us the axis of a debate within the early church about precisely what it means to be Christian. Matthew's Gospel posits the greatest commandments (love God and love your neighbor) and doing the will of the Father as the primary criteria; feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the distressed; and non-violent rebellion against the hegemonic kyriarchal order. Many of the people drawn to the early movement were people disenfranchised from society. Faith is never mentioned as a prerequisite for being in the basileia tou ouranou; rather it is cast as something which Christians are to nurture.
It is no accident that Matthew preferred to use the "secular" phrase "kingdom of heaven" over the "religious" phrase "kingdom of God" (basileia tou theou) found in the other gospels.
By these criteria, the mendicant and sometimes oppressed gallae would have fit quite well the profile of those deemed welcome to enter the basileia tou ouranou. But even Jesus admitted that this was a contentious idea that not everyone could accept. But "he who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
3. Paul, like John, represented a wing of the movement that did not want to accept the inclusion of people like the gallae into the Christian movement. I've cast the passage in I Corinthians about "veiled men and unveiled women" as indication of the debate in the early church about the use of ecstatic practices and the non-trivial association thereof with gallae and other forms of transgenderism. Ecstasy, along with all forms of mysticism, has tended to draw the suspicions of the religious elite, which historically has sought to define and enforce a monopoly on religious services. Mystics of any sort can come along at any time and sway the faithful with their vivid spiritual proclamations, even without going through the "proper" channels of the monopoly.
4. As indication that this debate went on for some time, there was the controversy over the Montanist movement, at the heart of which were two female prophets (one of whom had a vision of Christ as a woman in a shiny garment) and a converted galla, who had been a priestess of Cybele. The Montanists, like the Corinthians, also used ecstatic, esoteric visionary rituals to make the presence of the divine imminent.
5. This debate within the Christian movement might be a reflection of an earlier debate within Judaism. The qedeshim were described as gender-deviant priestesses of a Canaanite cult, probably similar in nature to the cults of Ishtar and later Cybele. The language of the Old Testament is often that of a beleagured orthodoxy and resembles the language of present-day conservative Christianity in that regard, with frequent references to the wavering and unfaith of the population. This tone suggests that the ancient scriptures were written to represent one view of many in a pluralistic society. The qedeshim were thus rivals, and their heirs in Roman society (the gallae) would have been seen as such by a reactionary hegemonic regime hearkening to the ancient scriptures for its authority.
1. Jesus defended John the Baptist against the accusation by his detractors that he was malakos, or "soft/effeminate." Rather than denying the charge, Jesus argues that the real issue was the fact that John was not working as a "palace prostitute."
2. On top of that there is this mysterious passage in Matthew:
[Matthew 19:11] But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
[12] "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
This occurs just after a discussion about marriage, in which Jesus contradicted the law of Moses. So the traditional interpretation is that "eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs" refers to people who choose not to marry and remain celibate. If that is what Jesus meant, then he should have said that. As it happens, at the time of Jesus there was a class of eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs -- the gallae.
However, could they have been said to make themselves eunuchs "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"? That really depends on what the phrase basileia tou ouranou means.
Some Christians -- those who wrote the Gospel of Matthew at least -- put far more stock on what one did and how one lived, than on what one believed. The author of John's Gospel took a different view of course; these opposing views appear to give us the axis of a debate within the early church about precisely what it means to be Christian. Matthew's Gospel posits the greatest commandments (love God and love your neighbor) and doing the will of the Father as the primary criteria; feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the distressed; and non-violent rebellion against the hegemonic kyriarchal order. Many of the people drawn to the early movement were people disenfranchised from society. Faith is never mentioned as a prerequisite for being in the basileia tou ouranou; rather it is cast as something which Christians are to nurture.
It is no accident that Matthew preferred to use the "secular" phrase "kingdom of heaven" over the "religious" phrase "kingdom of God" (basileia tou theou) found in the other gospels.
By these criteria, the mendicant and sometimes oppressed gallae would have fit quite well the profile of those deemed welcome to enter the basileia tou ouranou. But even Jesus admitted that this was a contentious idea that not everyone could accept. But "he who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
3. Paul, like John, represented a wing of the movement that did not want to accept the inclusion of people like the gallae into the Christian movement. I've cast the passage in I Corinthians about "veiled men and unveiled women" as indication of the debate in the early church about the use of ecstatic practices and the non-trivial association thereof with gallae and other forms of transgenderism. Ecstasy, along with all forms of mysticism, has tended to draw the suspicions of the religious elite, which historically has sought to define and enforce a monopoly on religious services. Mystics of any sort can come along at any time and sway the faithful with their vivid spiritual proclamations, even without going through the "proper" channels of the monopoly.
4. As indication that this debate went on for some time, there was the controversy over the Montanist movement, at the heart of which were two female prophets (one of whom had a vision of Christ as a woman in a shiny garment) and a converted galla, who had been a priestess of Cybele. The Montanists, like the Corinthians, also used ecstatic, esoteric visionary rituals to make the presence of the divine imminent.
5. This debate within the Christian movement might be a reflection of an earlier debate within Judaism. The qedeshim were described as gender-deviant priestesses of a Canaanite cult, probably similar in nature to the cults of Ishtar and later Cybele. The language of the Old Testament is often that of a beleagured orthodoxy and resembles the language of present-day conservative Christianity in that regard, with frequent references to the wavering and unfaith of the population. This tone suggests that the ancient scriptures were written to represent one view of many in a pluralistic society. The qedeshim were thus rivals, and their heirs in Roman society (the gallae) would have been seen as such by a reactionary hegemonic regime hearkening to the ancient scriptures for its authority.
no subject
Sorry, this simply isn't true. Jesus doesn't contradict the law of Moses, he challenges the Pharisees' use of the divorce exception - something completely different.
no subject
[8] Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
[9] I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Hmm, in re-examining the OT I concede that Jesus did not strictly contradict the letter of the Mosaic code. But Jesus' standard is counter to the spirit of it, which liberally permits divorce. There are many restrictions in the Mosaic code on marriage to divorced women which would not be in there at all if Jesus' view on divorce were the one assumed therein.
So I'll retract the word "contradiction." But the difference is more than merely one of interpretation. For one thing, it contains the implication that Jesus did not view the law of Moses as coming directly from God in its entirety; but rather, at least parts of it came from Moses. Some interesting implications of this were explored in the letter of Ptolemy to Flora.
no subject
no subject
Outside of that, I can find no circumstances under which a man is forbidden, or even discouraged, from divorcing his wife. Unless he "defiled" her before their marriage, he can according to the Mosaic Law divorce her more or less at will, thereby removing himself from the obligation to provide for her.
That is more liberal than even the code we have today in the US, under which many men are required by the courts to provide in part for their ex-wives and children. Until the advent of "no fault" divorce, men were required to allege some kind of misconduct in order to be granted a divorce; again, that code is more restrictive than the Mosaic Law.
no subject
However, since it's early in the day and I have yet to put my proper thinking cap on, I'll only address one issue concerning Matthew.
Matthew's gospel is extremely Jewish in flavor and by keeping in mind the Jewish tendency to avoid writing the word theos, it shouldn't be surprising that Matthew uses basileia tou ouranou, instead.
Rather than understanding the term as "secular", I believe that it should be understood as being highly observant of Jewish law.
I know I've been silent for a long time, but I read your stuff and I only mention this because I recently have taught Matthew to my student and I studied Matthew (specifically in the context of narrative theory) while at school and learned a lot. I respectively offer my opinion and do not mean to attack your position.
no subject
If the text of Matthew demonstrates a highly reverent Jewish perspective (which is not contradictory to my views on Matthew, as I can elaborate if such elaboration is needed) then how should we interpret the use of basileia tou theou in the other gospels?
no subject
By that, I mean not only that the validity of some of the specifics in scripture is questioned, but also that scripture overall is portrayed as supportive of our relationship to the divine rather than defining and driving that relationship. Thus there seems to be a strong emphasis on distilling the "crucial" teachings of scripture while demonstrating the shortcomings of relying on scripture to define one's beliefs and actions.
Would you agree with that as a general assessment of the gospel's attitude?
no subject
Okay, playing Devil's Advocate here
LB
Re: Okay, playing Devil's Advocate here
We can ask, for example, whether or not the "malestream" interpretation offers the clearest way to resolve inconsistencies or tensions in the existing texts, or between canonical and noncanonical texts, or between the texts and history.
What I've done above is take a few of those tensions and tug at them a bit to tease out what is going on. I think my interpretation offers more clarity than the malestream view.
ACK!
LB
Re: ACK!
no subject
Are you familiar with the amount of scholarship which has been done around the phrase usually translated as "born eunuchs"? I suspect that a fair number of transsexuals would fit into that category as well as many homosexuals.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22born+eunuch%22&btnG=Google+Search
In my understanding the phrase referred to persons with usually intact "male" bodies whose behavior was feminine and who were not attracted to women. Keeping in mind that the understanding of homosexuality as different from transgender is very modern and this becomes a biblical endorsement for some persons in each modern category.
Thanks,
Lorrraine