Tag: Wikipedia

  • Patriarchy in Modern Society: Historical Roots and Future Implications

    Reading Time: 11 minutes

    Historical Origins of Patriarchy

    We know the approximate origin of patriarchy in modern society. It appeared in the West approximately 1200 BCE. But the credit goes to Homer (750-700 B.C.) who sang of the struggles of distant heroes. He was the first to describe a patriarchal system. Homer’s poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, told of men who gave law to their children and wives. Next, we have the influence of Solon (630-550 B.C.). Solon’s actions may have advanced patriarchy in a more concrete way than Homer’s poems. He was considered ‘one of the Seven Wise men of Greece’. So, when he built a brothel in Athens and dedicated its profits to the erection of a temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, he gave patriarchy cultural and religious standing. However, it was Socrates (c. 470-399 B.C.) who immortalized disdain toward women1 Distain toward women is inseparable from patriarchy.

    I will argue that the first patriarchs were foreign invaders. They married women from the indigenous conquered populations and imposed their own demands on them. This required them to police their new system in order to perserve it.

    These invaders clearly demonstrated that they were rapists and looters and foreign adventurers. They never intended to assimilate into the conquered population. Instead, they remade the known world in their own image. But eventually the outrageousness of their behavior combined with their new positions of authority, motivated them to justify themselves. The Greeks used mythology and philosophy; the Romans used law. They both used misogyny.

    Early Patriarchs Were Synonymous With Warfare

    There were no early patriarchal societies. Patriarchy did not form societies. It destroyed them. The examples of Greece and Rome illustrate this characteristic. 

    Greece

    The context of early patriarchy in Greece was destruction and upheaval caused by the Achaean invasion. It was basically a bloody coup in which the invaders slew entire colleges of priestesses. But interspersed with the carnage were furtive and piecemeal tactics, such as sly manipulation of ancient marriage practices and occassional murder.

    Socrates and his students are our most familiar patriarchal authorities, but they didn’t invent the system. They were following a script written by earlier Greek conquerors. In Socrates’ time, all that was needed was continuing reinforcement and justification. Homer wrote his stories in the fourth century B.C. but he set them around 1200 B.C.  That is how the process worked. His poems were constantly adapted to please aristocratic patriarchal males. They also helped cover up crimes committed in the takeover.

    Rome

    Romulus founded the city of Rome as an asylum for runaway slaves, outlaws, exiles, and criminals from across Italy. There were almost no women there; the outlaws and outsiders were all male. So, the Romans invited a neighboring tribe to a festival and forcably kidnapped their daughters. This is known today as the Rape of the Sabine Women. The Roman home was treated like a conquered territory because that’s what it was. 

    The Modern Evolution of Patriarchy

    Today, the politically correct version of these stories are all that most people know. They are what comes up first in a Google search. This illustrates the modern evolution of patriarchy. We swim in a patriarchal ocean…

    Greece

    If you were to do a Google search for the question, Did Theseus conquere Crete?, you would get the official story. Theseus was sent to Crete as captive youth in tribute to the Minotaur. He successfully slew the beast, stopped the tribute, and escaped Crete with King Minos’s daughter, Ariadne.

    However, if you supply additional information, the full story can still be found. But you have to know what you are looking for when you begin. 

    If you reply for example, In reality, Theseus won property through bigamy and even kidnapped Helen when she was a child. You will get the following answer: Yes, in the context of Greek mythology, you are completely correct. While Theseus is often celebrated as a noble hero, his mythological history includes many deeply problematic and villainous acts, including the kidnapping of a young Helen.

    This answer includes a general outline of the story–Helen’s age, where they kept her, and the consequences of Theseus’s villainy. However, sources may hedge a little. For example, according to the source linked above, Theseus was motivated by his desire to marry a daughter of Zeus. That may be technically true, but it meant that he wanted access to what Helen would bring to a marriage: the throne and control of the related territory.

    Other sources fill in the blanks. Theseus used the same technique in Crete. When he married Phaedra, the sister of Ariadne and daughter of King Minos of Crete, it solidified Athenian ties to Cretan wealth and power. However, it ultimately ended in a family tragedy.

    Rome

    If you ask Google where Roman Patriarchy comes from, again the first answer is the politically correct one. Roman Patriarchy was the result of brutal practical realities. These ‘practical realities’ include early agrarian survival, warlike tribal foundations, and strict property law. The Sources listed are Reddit and Brewminate.com. 

    The explanation continues: While the Greeks used philosophy to keep women away, the Romans used codified law. Their law turned the male head of the household into a micro-emperor.

    Supposedly the economy of cattle and the danger that they might be stolen made this necessary. Men monopolized the warfare necessary to protect the herds. Therefore, the male line controlled the property. 

    There are many ways to say the same thing. For example, the early Roman agrarian state was surrounded by hostile neighbors and had to organize itself like a military fortress. The family was not an emotional unit. It was an economic corporation headed by the oldest male in the family. The sources listed are: Worldhistory.org; Wikipedia; bbc.co.uk; and medium.com.

    Nevertheless, we get the impression that the position of women in Rome was not as pitiful as Athenian women. 

    Objection: Why Didn’t the Indigenous People Become Patriarchal?

    There is one important objection to these justifications for Roman patriarchy. Indigenous peoples faced the same threats but they didn’t subjugate their women. This objection is quickly validated by Google’s AI.

    Your point about indigenous cultures (like many Native American tribes) developing matrilineal systems despite facing hostile neighbors is completely accurate. This proves that external threats do not inherently force a society to adopt an extreme patriarchy. 

    This thread provided the story of Romulus, which I related at the beginning of this discussion. It concludes with the following statement :

    “While indigenous matrilineal societies relied on deep, stable kinship networks where women held the continuity of the community, Rome was an aggressive, synthetic military state built by rootless men.”

    The Stories of Ancient Greece and Rome are Actually Defense and Coverup

    In Greece, Plato and Aristotle provided an intellectual defense for the Hellenes’ brutal conquest during the Bronze age, centuries earlier. When they arrived, the Aegean was dominated by the Minoan Civilization on the island of Crete. This culture was centered around female power. (The reason for Greek hatred of women couldn’t be more clear.) 

    These were Mycenaeans, the first true Greeks. They arrived from the mainland around 1450 B.C.E.,  overthrew the Minoan centers, smashed the matriarchal structures, and replaced the Mother Goddess with their own sky-father warrior god, Zeus. (Quora.com and Internationalschoolhistory.com.)

    “By the time Socrates and Plato came along, the physical violence was over, but the guilt and anxiety of that violence remained. Classical philosophy was the ultimate coping mechanism: it allowed Athenian men to look at the subjugated women around them and say, ‘We didn’t violently steal your power; nature and logic dictate that you never should have had it in the first place’.” (LiteratureandHistory.com)

    The Weaponization of Name Calling and Outrage

    The Greeks in Herodotus’ times knew of four generations who were responsible for a period of social upheaval. One example is the renowned Heroes who slew many mythological beasts: Bellerophon killed the Chimera; Hercules or Herakles ended the lives of many monsters in his Twelve Labors; Theseus killed the Minotaur and founded Athens. We know now that these are pleasant ways of describing a more brutal reality. 

    The Chimera was one of the symbols of the Mother Goddess cult; we are really being told that Bellerophon ended the cult by killing its priestesses. He may have even used one Mother Goddess cult to wipe out another. The Pegasus, which he used to kill the Chimera, was one of Her favorite animals. However, he may also have experienced a revolt. In the end, he fell from Pegasus and died2, p. 129-130.

    The killing of the Minotaur by Theseus probably represents the Achaean invasion of Crete, and Herakles’ Second Labor was the killing of the Hydra of Lerna. The killing of the Hydra probably represents the elimination of a college of priestesses at Lerna. And when Herakles shot the Stymphalian birds with his arrows, his Sixth Labor, he was really suppressing a Goddess cult at Stymphaly. That’s how the myths are interpreted today.

    Herakles was Fighting a Religious War

    Herakles was fighting a religious war. His myth had vestiges of ancient Goddess worship, but it was distorted. Before he arrived, the Goddess cult had deified many Heroes, but in the end he was the only Hero who remained. (This is the same as Palemon, whose story is described below.)

    The myth states that Herakles worked for Hera. However, this isn’t exactly right. By this time, marriage was an Achaean weapon. Generations of Heroes before him had achieved political and religious status by marrying a sacred queen. In the case of this Herakles (his real name was Palemon) he was following orders to marry the Queen and become the Hero-King of that Euzkan region. He was accompanied on his mission by Theseus, Iolcus, Peleus and many others. When he took the Golden Girdle from Hippolyte the Queen of the Amazons on his ninth labor, he actually deflowered her. That led to a battle in which the Amazons were killed.

    The voyages of the Achaeans were not particularly focused. They included the exploration of trade routes and general mischief, so it took some time to understand what they were doing. Sometimes a king would simply leave the kingdom. It was a violation of religious tradition and a shocking lack of piety with no explanation, but it was considered a one-time thing. In addition, the period of kingship was gradually increased by the invaders, sometimes up to twenty years and only then would a king fight to avoid being deposed. The pattern wouldn’t become clear until later. After all, the indigenous population lived within the established system. It had been part of a sacred reality in that region for as long as anyone could remember. But finally the priestesses recognized the danger.

    Jason and Medea

    Jason married Medea, a Sacred Queen, and when the time came to escape he took her with him. When she discovered what his real intentions were, it was not possible for her to return. She was disgraced and she would have been punished. Instead she chose to advise King Aegeus of Athens of the threat posed by Theseus. She tried to poison Theseus, but he escaped to Crete where he seduced Ariadne. Then he returned to Athens, killed Aegeus, took the throne, and banished Medea.

    Palemon

    It is thought that Palemon married sacred queens at least three times, probably many more. As stated previously, the Achaeans were able to do this by taking a leave during their kingship. In this way they could unify or control a wide region. The social psychic instability continued for centuries, and most Greek tragedies are based in this period.

    Deianeira

    When Deianeira, the current wife of Palemon, realized what was happening, she took advice from the Centaurs, Pelasgian horsemen. They knew Palemon very well because he had had killed their king, Cheiron, and many others. This had been particularly outrageous because Centaur Cheiron had trained him in archery and the art of hallucinogens.

    Deianeria annointed one of Palemon’s shirts with a poison supplied by Centaur Nessus. He died while wearing this shirt. Palemon was deified after his death even though he was not the last Hero or even the last Herekles. For the indo-Europeans he was the only one.

    The old religion continued for some time, but the information war continued too. And eventually, Homer wrote his version of the drama in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

    What We Know About the First Patriarchal Systems

    Among Indo-Europeans women were very low on the social scale. For Latins and Greeks, they were just a little above other reproductive animals. They had no social rights at all. Rather than enjoying an independent lifestyle, they were transferred from their father’s authority to that of their husbands. If they survived their spouses, their male children assumed authority over them.

    Greek writers such as Theopompus and Hesiod, and their Roman compatriots like Cato, agreed that the only purpose of a woman was to provide legitimate children. The education of women was limited to weaving and cooking, and they never appeared in public.

    In ‘settled, lawful Rome’ until the rise of the Empire, women could not own property, or anything else for that matter. They were owned. They were so unimportant they had no names. Emilia and Claudia were family names indicating that they belonged to an Emilii or Claudii man.

    Women prepared the meals for their men and their guests but they did not eat with them. The same was true in Rome. Roman and Greek conservatives were disgusted by the conduct of Etruscan and Ionian women. Yes, disgusted. Not surprised, not curious, not disapproving. Disgusted!

    What was the Character of the Indigenous Society?

    A different sort of society existed in the same region during this period. The indigenous societies they took over had been in Europe thousands of years before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. They were the remnant of the Paleolithic population in that region.

    Ionian women for example joined their husbands at their businesses. They had their own businesses too, and could inherit and pass on property. Love in the couple was common. The women were competitive, and their husbands didn’t mind. 

    We know from my original patriarchy article that women in Egypt had similar rights before Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great. Alexander was a student of Aristotle; Aristotle was a student of Plato; Plato was in the vanguard of the regime-change campaign.

    Alexander the Great consciously strove to spread Greek thought, language and culture to all of the peoples he conquered. Thanks to him, the writings of his mentors, Plato and Aristotle, have been perpetuated in Western philosophy. And as Alfred North Whitehead famously said, Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.

    Women’s Rights v Disgusted Indo-Europeans

    One of the accounts I am using focuses on the Basques. This is The Oldest Europeans by J. F. del Giorgio. I’ve discovered a few minor errors in this work, but I’ve found it useful for the most part. He argues the traits of these societies were shared by populations in other areas of the West, for example, Britons, Scandinavians, Irish, Welsh, Celts, Etruscans and Pelasgians–the Oldest Europeans. It is interesting that hatred for these cultures resurfaced before World War II. 

    The trait that had most bothered those early invaders was the independence and self-assertiveness of European women. Before World War II Asiatic anti-European propaganda claimed independent women were a modern symptom of European decadence. 

    del Giorgio argues that modernity had nothing to do with it.

    The independence and other remarkable traits of European women are not modern, It all comes from ancient, very ancient times.

    Actually, it is not now that they are more independent. They have not gained independence during the last millennia, but have almost completely lost it. European women were not merely independent in the past. They seem to have enjoyed a remarkable high status. They were practically in command (del Giorgio, p. 86)

    Patriarchy in Contemporary Society

    The impact of patriarchy on modern social structures is so total it is almost invisible. Many modern women assume they are liberated, or they did until the recent American backlash, but this perception was always delusional. The overriding structure of the world is patriarchal and it will remain that way until our institutions and economic agreements change drastically.

    Challenges to Patriarchal Structures

    An effective challenge to patriarchal structures does not exist in today’s world. The feminism allowed by our culture is part of the power structure. Take Hilary Clinton for example. She and Bill together have been good soldiers for the Anglo-Saxon-leaning power-base for their entire careers. And I would venture to say that Hilary has always been in awe of Bill’s political ability, regardless of her independent feminist stance. She is talented in her own way and hard-working, but her only claim to fame in the 2016 election was being female. She didn’t win, but she fulfilled her assignment–to do whatever was necessary to defeat Bernie.

    The Same-Sex Marriage Movement as Women’s Rights Strategy

    The same-sex marriage movement has its own dedicated lobbyists who are working toward some invisible goal. Feminist theory may be the source of this movement, but as a strategy for women’s rights, it’s wrong-headed. 

    Greece and Rome fostered same-sex relationships, but this did not help Greek or Roman women. Same-sex relations were not a threat to the Achaeans. Women as women were the threat, and the Achaeans destroyed the cultures that honored them. 

    The Romans loved Greek art, architecture, and literature, and they assimilated some of it into their arts and mythology. They were also heavily patriarchal but their patriarchy had a different character than Greek patriarchy. The Romans rejected certain Greek institutions. They especially despised the classical Greek social structures which they believed made Athenian men weak, effeminate, and psychologically soft. For that reason, they criticized gymnariums and nakedness. These institutions were a recipe for laziness and corruption in their view. The Romans exercised for military training, but they kept their clothes on. (thehistorianshut.com; onlinelibrary.wiley.com)

    Rome also rejected Greek pederasty. They thought it violated a citizen’s dignity. They did form same-sex relationships, but they protected Roman youth. A Roman citizen could only have same-sex relations with slaves or non-citizens, and he must always take the dominant penetrative role. They viewed the Greek system of courted free citizens as a complete breakdown of patriarchal authority.(rlesser.sites.gettysburg.edu; thoughts.com)

     

     

     

    1. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really said About Women. HarperCollins Publishers, NY, 1988. [↩]
    2. J.F. del Georgio, The Oldest Europeans. A.J. Place, 2005. [↩]
  • The Divinity of Jesus Christ

    Reading Time: 6 minutes

    Arianism is the issue that led to the Council of Nicaea. It is one example of a doctrine that questions the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Arius (c. 250 – 336) believed that Jesus was just a man. His doctrine is now called Arianism. “Arianism affirmed a created, finite nature of Christ rather than equal divinity with God the Father.”

    Arius’s views were eventually denounced as heresy, but not before they divided the Church’s bishops. They caused so much turmoil in the early Church that the Emperor Constantine called a council to reconcile the factions. The final decision about this doctrine was composed at the council of Nicaea.

    I’m Against Re-litigating Arianism

    It is surprising to find that the divinity of Jesus is currently being litigated on YouTube as if the Council never happened. For reasons I will explain here, I am against re-litigating Arianism.

    But it is important to state at the beginning that this debate is connected to another important topic: the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In this article I will use Thomas Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth, to add the information that I wasn’t allowed to add on Wikipedia. Boslooper’s account indicates that Christian scholarship has a long history of skirting the topic of the virgin birth.

    There is Power in Christianity

    There is power in the Christian religion. Many people have testified of this. Based on my own experience, people of faith are not bothered by a critical approach to the virgin birth. However, a certain editor on Wikipedia was bothered so much that he became a thief. Then he bullied me and told lies about me for daring to write about it.

    Sincere objections can usually be overcome. However, on Wikipedia the insincere party has the ability to block anyone it disagrees with. This makes reconciliation, not to mention real understanding, impossible. I think it implies either a lack of faith or the desire for a public spectacle.

    Here on my own blog, I am at least able to write without interruption. The question remains as to whether anything I write will get through to anyone. And yet, I keep writing.

    My Cautious Approach to the Scholarship

    Before I begin, it is important to remember that the The Virgin Birth was published in 1962. Religious leaders have had more than thirty years to consider or make changes based on Boslooper’s arguments and criticisms. So, some of the criticisms may no longer be justified.

    I have noticed while studying James B. Adamson’s commentary on the Book of James that Christian theologians must be familiar with the findings of biblical scholars. Apparently, when they agree with those findings they are willing to make changes. What else can explain the omission of this phrase from the Lord’s Prayer, ‘And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil’?

    Boslooper Cites the Failure of Biblical Scholarship

    Boslooper was convinced that biblical scholarship had failed to present the kind of analysis of the story of Jesus’ birth that would serve as the basis of a satisfactory interpretation. He was mainly inspired by Oscar Cullmann’s1 disappointment when he could not find a single book on the virgin birth that presents a historical approach to the subject. The purpose of this book was to fill this need in biblical critical scholarship. The Virgin Birth is a history of interpretations of Jesus’ birth.

    Thomas Boslooper’s Introduction Summarized

    The subject of the virgin birth brings with it an entire history of interpretations. Christian communities have always taken different views on this part of Jesus’ story. There is also a history of responses from the non-Christian community.

    Beginning with Ignatius and continuing through Origen, the virgin birth was at the center of the Church’s controversy with the non-Christian world. The exact point of disagreement differed with every non-Christian community.

    The Debate With Jews and Gentiles

    With the Jews, Christians struggled to demonstrate the relationship of the virgin birth to the Old Testament. With the Gentiles, the discussion centered on the relationship of the virgin birth to other religious traditions.

    Meanwhile, within early Christianity itself the virgin birth had a positive effect over all with the development of Marian theology. A theology of Mary developed at the same time as a body of extra-canonical literature to support it.

    Protestant Christianity

    In Protestant Christianity, two main factions developed around the story of the virgin birth, supernaturalists versus naturalists. The supernaturalists considered the virgin birth historical. For them, it was an indispensable support to the whole structure of Christianity. The naturalists on the other hand, thought the virgin birth was unhistorical and therefore, unimportant.

    Examples of How Modern Historians Dealt With the Virgin Birth

    The story and doctrine of the virgin birth are treated as almost invisible by modern historians and contemporary theologians. They all tend to follow the naturalistic interpretation and attach it to a single historical or theological idea. Many of them treat the virgin birth in the narratives of Matthew, chs. 1 and 2 and Luke, chs. 1 and 2 as unrelated to the main story of Jesus. Boslooper gives several examples of historical treatments:

    • Harnack thought the virgin birth should be understood as the outgrowth of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
    • Lobstein proposed the view that the virgin birth is a myth created by popular devotion to explain the divine Sonship of Christ.
    • For Percy Gardner, the narratives of the virgin birth represent two separate attempts to give a date for the divine origin of Jesus.
    • Soltau saw the story of Jesus’ conception as an attempt at the end of the first century to reconcile the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the one hand, with the earlier tradition of his origin in Nazareth on the other.
    • Conybeare understood the virgin birth as a legend adopted by the Catholic Church to reconcile the Ebionite and Docetic parties.
    • Charles Guignebert argued that all the stories of the miraculous birth were a solution to a Christological problem that arose in the primitive community. This problem had to do with the conflict between the terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’.

    Contemporary Theologians

    According to Boslooper, Emil Brunner, Nels Ferré, and Paul Tillich oversimplify the problem of interpretation. They underestimate the significance of the virgin birth by linking it to the early Christian doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. This association was not a positive development in their opinion. They thought it stood in the way of a true understanding of the incarnation.

    For Brunner and Ferré, the virgin birth obscures and obstructs the fact of Jesus’ true humanity.2 For Tillich, it represents one of the New Testament’s rationalizations. He thought it changed a positive religious concept into a negative form.3

    Positive and Negative Aspects in the Interpretation of the Virgin Birth

    On the negative side, the history of interpretation has been a history of error. The Old Roman Catholic Church maligned the Biblical narratives by transferring the chief emphasis from Jesus to Mary and from marriage to virginity. Following the Protestant Reformation, the rationalistic naturalists underestimated the importance of the narrative through their a priori judgments against miracle, and the theological supernaturalists by attaching the virgin birth to the deity of Christ and by insisting on the ‘literal historicity’ of the story removed Jesus’ origin from the context of history. Historical critics, by being obsessed with the compulsion to demonstrate what was the source from which the Biblical narrative was ‘derived,’ tended to deprive the church of the significance of the content of the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. (Boslooper pp. 20-21)

    But the history of interpretation has also had positive effects. Boslooper argues that it has provided insight and contributed to our understanding of the Biblical narratives.

    The Roman Catholic Church preserved the relevance of the virgin birth to personal morality. The naturalists have helped the church recognize the true moral character of the narratives and helped curb the abuses that appeared through apocryphal tradition. The supernaturalists have insisted on the importance of the story of Jesus’ origin and demanded that the church take the doctrine seriously. Historical criticism gave a proper literary classification to the virgin birth. It eventually recognized its true role in the world and provided the basis for understanding the content of its message. (Boslooper p. 21)

    The Crux of the Problem (In Boslooper’s View)

    Boslooper argued that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions took the virgin birth in the gospels as literal history. In this way they weakened the thrust of its morally redemptive message.

    The Catholics produced a Docetic theology of Mary, questioned the sanctity of sex, and idealized virginity. The Protestants used the virgin birth to prove the deity of Christ and to set forth a moral idealism attached solely to the person of Jesus. In these approaches the original message was lost. The original message was that moral order is to be established within the marriage bond.

    Boslooper’s Objection to the Literal Historical View

    Boslooper argued that ‘The virgin birth is ‘myth, in the highest and best sense of the word’. He thought both Roman Catholics and Protestants were wrong to insist on the ‘literal historicity of the narratives’. For him, the universal message of Jesus’ origin is the important thing. The ‘truth’ in Boslooper’s opinion, is found somewhere between the Roman Catholic tradition and the Protestant tradition.

    My Conclusion

    I will point out that Boslooper goes beyond presenting a history of interpretations of the virgin birth when he tries to explain the purpose of the story. It seems to me he exceeded his stated purpose with mere speculation.

    Why do I say this? The statement that the virgin birth is myth ‘in the highest and best sense of the word’ is one thing. Defining its purpose and limiting its influence to the attestation of the humanity of Jesus and the sanctity of sex and marriage is a bit high-handed. For one thing, even assuming it is myth, the inspirations or motivations behind the story can’t be known.

    However, the main problem might be that the question of Jesus’ divinity has been forgotten entirely. In what way is he divine? How might this divinity be possible for a human born to a woman?

    The Perspective of Faith

    The faithful who experience his divinity probably don’t need an explanation for it. Maybe that’s why so many scholars have treated it as unimportant or detachable from the rest of the story. The most I can do at this point is acknowledge that the virgin birth really is a difficult subject. One might argue whether it is a myth in the best sense of the word, but the virgin birth is definitely a mystery in the best sense of the word.

    1. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Sun and the Umbrella (1953), pp. 28-29. ↩︎
    2. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (1957), pp. 126-127, 149. ↩︎