Antiquitopia

I was reading through some of Tertullian this morning, and ran across this gem: However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion - to which free will and not force should lead us - the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind. (To Scapula 2; ANF translation) Tertullian is speaking here of Christians being forced to offer sacrifice to Roman gods, but, as a member of a minority religion in the Roman Empire, develops this broader principle of religious freedom.  It reminds me a bit of the Quranic passage that "there is no compulsion in religion." 

If anyone who reads this blog has somehow does not also read Larry Hurtado's or April DeConick's blogs, please check into the discussion they're having about Gnostics as Christian Intellectuals. Hurtado's first post ; DeConick's  response ; Hurtado's  response to DeConick's response. Hurtado's posts predominantly raise the question of definition: what is an intellectual (and, by the way, most scholars would not fall under his definition because you have to be public - and therefore counts only those engaged in apologetics or who can draw a Greco-Roman response)?  This definition of intellectual, relying on the old distinction between a scholar and an intellectual, raises some questions for early Christian thinkers (a term I will use to cover both scholars and intellectuals). So was Origen merely a scholar - not an intellectual - until he wrote Contra Celsum ?  How truly "public" are apologetic writings?  Though Justin's apologies are...

Here is a quick question to everyone out in cyberspace.  This past week I was teaching my "Sex, Gender, and the Bible" course and we were reading Ruth (among other things). One of the things that caught a student's eye (but which did not catch mine) was Ruth 4:17, where the women of Bethlehem proclaim that the baby boy that Ruth gives birth to is Naomi's: "A son has been born to Naomi." So, some thoughts that I had that I think are all wrong: 1. This has something to do with the levirate marriage.  The problem is that the point of the levirate is that the child continues the name of the dead husband (Mahlon); not the name of the living mother-in-law.  One might argue that the levirate law has already been stretched a bit in Ruth (since it is being used for a non-Israelite), but this interpretation seems really pushing it to me. 2. This is adoption.  But the text says that Naomi becomes his nurse - and I am unaware of such "adoptions" occurri...

Anthony LeDonne has compiled a hilarious stack of honest business cards, one including yours truly.  Check them out here .  Though, I think with mine Anthony was self-projecting a bit. ;)

Perhaps I am finding early Christian writings funnier than they are supposed to be, but they are quite funny.  Anyway, as I was reading some Clement of Alexandria today, he warns against men shaving...anything.  He writes: "It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood: hairiness." (Paed. 3.4) He further writes: "'But the very hairs of your head are all numbers,' says the Lord; those on the chin, too, are numbered, and those on the whole body.  There must be therefore no plucking out, contrary to God's appointment, which has counted them in according to His will." Where else are you going to read page after page the importance of hairiness, from facial to body hair?  Never, therefore, shave!