• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Clement of Alexandria acknowledges Poly

rockfox said:
Paul got himself into no shortage of public drama and spectacle. Also remember in Acts that the Gospel was brought to new places with 'signs and wonders'. I would also not be surprised to hear that Peter was more bold with his miracles or had a little more flair about it. Even Christ himself created a few public spectacles.
Click to expand...


I don’t have an issue with miracles and the miraculous, this doc just seems a bit too much, like bringing a fish back to life so people can see it swimming around and believe in God. Or a local magic vrs miracle show to prove who truly has the power of God, or Peter praying that his daughter have the palsy and one side be withered so that men wouldn’t kidnap her because she was so beautiful. Then he heals her so that people believe in Gods power and then un heals her so that she won’t tempt anyone.

You’d have to read it to see what I mean. I’m not saying it’s all incorrect or that there’s not a seed of truth in it, it may well be an accurate description of his martyrdom, but I don’t believe the stated charge for a minute. It’s worth a read if you have time, especially for entertainment value and to get a feel for what was trying to be passed off as “inspired” in that day.

If you really want an interesting read, the Ascension of Isaiah I’d highly recommend. Lots of good nuggets in that one. Just not much on poly or the family.
 
So this passage wasn’t about poly. I just thought the distinction made here re fornication is interesting.

Acts of Herod/ Gospel of Nicodemus
And the eiders of the Jews answered, and said to Jesus: What shall we see? first, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth in Bethlehem was the cause of the murder of the infants; thirdly, that thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had no confidence in the people.

Some of the bystanders, pious men of the Jews, say: we deny that he was born of fornication; for we know that Joseph espoused Mary, and he was not born of fornication. Pilate says to the Jews who said that he was of fornication: This story of yours is not true, because they were betrothed, as also these fellow-countrymen of yours say. Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he was born of fornication, and are not believed; these are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews. And those that said that He was not born of fornication, viz.-Lazarus, Asterius, Antonius, James, Atones, Zeras, Samuel, Isaac, Phinees, Crispus, Agrippas, and Judas -say: We are not proselytes, but are children of the Jews, and speak of the truth; for we were present at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary.
 
From the fragments of Tatian

A certain person inveighs against generation, calling it corruptible and destructive; and some one does violence [to Scripture], applying to pro-creation the Saviour's words, "Lay not up treasure on earth, where moth and rust corrupt;" and he is not ashamed to add to these the words of the prophet: "You all shall grow old as a garment, and the moth shall devour you."

And, in like manner, they adduce the saying concerning the resurrection of the dead, "The sons of that world neither marry nor are given in marriage."--CLEM. ALEX.: iii. c. 12, 86.

III.

Tatian, who maintaining the imaginary flesh of Christ, pronounces all sexual connection impure, who was also the very violent heresiarch of the Encratites, employs an argument of this sort: "If any one sows to the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption;" but he sows to the flesh who is joined to a woman; therefore he who takes a wife and sows in the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption.--HIERON.: Com. in Ep. ad Gal.

I have often wondered where the idea originated that marriage and intercourse within marriage was sinful. It appears that Tatian seems to be the culprit. Whether or not Tertullian and others of his like have a direct connection to Tatian I am not sure, but in respect to chronology, Tatian would be the first I’ve found somewhere around the 150’s to 160’s.AD
 
Is that this Tatian?

Two interesting notes about him. First, he was a Syrian and influential among them. And second, he was expelled from the church (in Rome?) for his extreme ascetic views.

That second part fits. But the two together make it less likely he had so much influence as to affect the seemingly church wide negative views on sex.
 
rockfox said:
Is that this Tatian?

Two interesting notes about him. First, he was a Syrian and influential among them. And second, he was expelled from the church (in Rome?) for his extreme ascetic views.

That second part fits. But the two together make it less likely he had so much influence as to affect the seemingly church wide negative views on sex.
Click to expand...

He didn’t affect church wide views IMO, just some very vocal men like Tertullian who ended up writing some of the documents that have survived to our time.
 
I was going through some of my files on Early church fathers and realized I hadnt posted this one yet. Circa 135-150 AD

Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho

CHAPTER CXL -- IN CHRIST ALL ARE FREE. THE JEWS HOPE FOR SALVATION IN VAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE SONS OF ABRAHAM.
"Hence also Jacob, as I remarked before, being himself a type of Christ, had married the two handmaids of his two free wives, and of them begat sons, for the purpose of indicating beforehand that Christ would receive even all those who amongst Japheth's race are descendants of Canaan, equally with the free, and would have the children fellow-heirs. And we are such; but you cannot comprehend this, because you cannot drink of the living fountain of God, but of broken cisterns which can hold no water, as the Scripture says. But they are cisterns broken, and holding no water, which your own teachers have digged, as the Scripture also expressly asserts, 'teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God, which the Scriptures have proved is not the case. For if so, Isaiah would never have said this: 'And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah.' And Ezekiel: 'Even if Noah, and Jacob, and Daniel were to pray for sons or daughters, their request should not be granted.' But neither shall the father perish for the son, nor the son for the father; but every one for his own sin, and each shall be saved for his own righteousness. And again Isaiah says: 'They shall look on the car; cases of them that have transgressed: their worm shall not cease, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh.' And our Lord, according to the will of Him that sent Him, who is the Father and Lord of all, would not have said, 'They shall come from the east, and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.' Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded," that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God's fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be.

Chapter CLXI
We have as proof of this the one fall of David, which happened through his boasting, which was forgiven then when he so mourned and wept, as it is written. But if even to such a man no remission was granted before repentance, and only when this great king, and anointed one, and prophet, mourned and conducted himself so, how can the impure and utterly abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute to them sin? And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this."
 
Just found this in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata 2 chapter 20
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who are unmarried to discharge the highest magisterial offices. For instance, the legislator of the Spartans imposed a fine not on bachelorhood only, but on monogamy? and late marriage, and single life. And the renowned Plato orders the man who has not married to pay a wife's maintenance into the public treasury, and to give to the magistrates a suitable sum of money as expenses. For if they shall not beget children, not having married, they produce, as far as in them lies, a scarcity of men, and dissolve states and the world that is composed of them, impiously doing away with divine generation.

Notice the translators bias in the bold section re the question mark @ monogamy. I cant imagine Clement putting a question mark there, but the translator OTOH must have been as shocked as I was to see something like that.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Just found this in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata 2 chapter 20
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who are unmarried to discharge the highest magisterial offices. For instance, the legislator of the Spartans imposed a fine not on bachelorhood only, but on monogamy? and late marriage, and single life.....
Notice the translators bias in the bold section re the question mark @ monogamy. I cant imagine Clement putting a question mark there, but the translator OTOH must have been as shocked as I was to see something like that.
Click to expand...
You''re on to something Verify. There is no question mark in the copy I own:
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who are unmarried to discharge the highest magisterial offices. For instance, the legislator of the Spartans imposed a fine not on bachelorhood only, but on monogamy, and late marriage, and single life.

My copy has a footnote where yours has a question mark:
i.e., not entering into a second marriage after a wife’s death. But instead of μονογαμιου some read κακογαμιου—bad marriage.
Clement of Alexandria. (1885). The Stromata, or Miscellanies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Vol. 2, p. 378). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The footnote content seems to me conspiratorial also as why would they tax a man for taking another wife after his wife's death? Seems the translator may be trying to impose the Roman concept of remaining a widower / widow until death on the much older Greek civilization in order to avoid polygamy. Does anyone have access to the Greek text so I can take a look at the original?
 
IshChayil said:
You''re on to something Verify. There is no question mark in the copy I own:
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who are unmarried to discharge the highest magisterial offices. For instance, the legislator of the Spartans imposed a fine not on bachelorhood only, but on monogamy, and late marriage, and single life.

My copy has a footnote where yours has a question mark:
i.e., not entering into a second marriage after a wife’s death. But instead of μονογαμιου some read κακογαμιου—bad marriage.
Clement of Alexandria. (1885). The Stromata, or Miscellanies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Vol. 2, p. 378). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The footnote content seems to me conspiratorial also as why would they tax a man for taking another wife after his wife's death? Seems the translator may be trying to impose the Roman concept of remaining a widower / widow until death on the much older Greek civilization in order to avoid polygamy. Does anyone have access to the Greek text so I can take a look at the original?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but these seem to be saying the strongest leaders must have multiple wives presumably to procreate and add prodgeny from good fighter/leader stock. Is that right?

If so, then we have witness to why leaders like David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, etc had multiple wives. True that the connection is not direct due to Greek v Hebrew distance and cultural differences, but tangentially supports Paul's mia clause such that a man had to be faithful (first) husband and proven leader (manages house). Of course, the Spartans were long gone by then and Greek 'culturization' (feminizing) had happened, but it helps understand alpha connections and then seeing why culture then (and now) seeks to emasculate it.

Good finds.
 
PeteR said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but these seem to be saying the strongest leaders must have multiple wives presumably to procreate and add prodgeny from good fighter/leader stock. Is that right?

If so, then we have witness to why leaders like David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, etc had multiple wives. True that the connection is not direct due to Greek v Hebrew distance and cultural differences, but tangentially supports Paul's mia clause such that a man had to be faithful (first) husband and proven leader (manages house). Of course, the Spartans were long gone by then and Greek 'culturization' (feminizing) had happened, but it helps understand alpha connections and then seeing why culture then (and now) seeks to emasculate it.

Good finds.
Click to expand...
Each of the instances fined all have a common evil: the possible restriction of a huge family. No doubt their legislator was encouraging their culture to either have huge families OR to make sure all of the women had a family to be productive in.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this."
Click to expand...

What point is he trying to make here? I can't tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top