Honor in Ancient Greek, Jewish and Christian Culture:
(Jennifer Steere's Notes)
Today, we generally see honor as a synonym for pride – an emotion a person feels about a positive action they have performed. In both Ancient and Christian terms, however, honor was seen differently.
Ancient Greek Honor
The original Greek word for honor means
worth or value, but in a very literal sense. Honor was a culturally constructed
evaluation of a person’s actions, which determined a person’s worth, as in their
price, or value to the community.
For us, we see honor as a feeling that starts inside the person and seen by
people outside. Honor worked in the opposite direction: the community feels the
emotion about the person and projects that feeling on to him.
Like this:
There were two kinds of honor: ascribed or achieved.
Ascribed
honor is bestowed through no action or agency of one’s own. The family a person
is in, how much wealth, land, power, etc. ascribes honor, as does the order of
birth. First born sons are generally the heir (or begotten) so they’re ascribed
more honor than a second or third born child. Male children are valued above
female.
|
To put this in perspective, in ancient
Greek/Roman culture, a man was the physical
representation of the entire estate. He was the
living breathing icon representing all the land,
property, wealth, house-members,
responsibilities, etc.
Women and slave could be
ascribed honor by joining an honorable
household. (Note that slaves had more agency
than Pre-Civil War U.S. definition. Slaves sold
themselves for a fixed number of years – and
were free to change masters at their own whim –
more like bond servants. |
|
Honor can also be ascribed through the political sphere when a person of greater
honor assigns a position of honor on someone. For example, Caesar appointed
Pontius Pilot to his position as protectorate of Jerusalem, and Pilot gained
honor.
Achieved Honor:
Citizens
(adult males, not slaves) could earn honor through military conquest, public
performances, political action, or social behavior. Achieved honor is most
comparable to our notions of reputation or fame. It was believed that honor was
a finite commodity. Honor could run out. If someone gained honor, that meant
someone, somewhere had lost some. Consequently, hosting parties, introducing
people, funding community projects, writing plays, anyway to draw positive
attention to oneself were highly competitive endeavors.
Christian Inversions of Greek Honor
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Take care not to practice you
righteousness publicly before men so as to be seen by them” (1156). He is
directly challenging the traditional Greek (and perhaps Hebrew) conception of
honor, denying, in essence, its public element. Can you find other snippets from
Matthew and Luke that push back against the love of honor culture?
Shame
Shame moves in the opposite direction. Shame is
the community removing honor (dishonor). The person experiences an internal
feeling shame and is then expected to perform according to that feeling. For example,
when person loses a contest he hangs his head in shame. When a son dies, the
father would pour ashes on his head and tear his cloak.
Shame can have a positive aspect too. When a
person behaves shamelessly, it means they are acting with total disregard for
the community. So in this sense to act with shame is to be aware of the public
view of you. A person acts with shame aims to perform according to the rules and
boundaries of their position. This is why it is said women have shame, men have
honor. Men can cultivate honor and bring honor onto themselves, and women can
perform well within their position.
In the story of the Prodigal Son (1158), the son
squanders his inheritance early, and finds himself working with pigs, starving
and wanting to eat what the pig have. (Remember, Jesus is telling this story so
the son is Jewish. Kosher was very important.) The son decides to go back to his
father’s house and offer himself as a slave in the household. He enters in a
position of shame: he comes begging.
The brother shares that feeling by dishonoring the returning son, and
saying he does not deserve to come home. But because this is a Christian parable
(not Greek), the father rejects the external eye,
and forgives his son, taking him in regardless of how other people see it.
We're interested in how this Christian reconcepion of honor and shame play out in the chivalric stories that evolve out of the Christian model, as well.
**Socrates said, “Shame is worth than death.”
According to the sections of Matthew and Luke in our text book, how would Jesus
respond?
WORKS CITED
Bartchy, S. Scott. “The Historical Jesus and
Honor Reversal at the Table.” The Social
Setting of
Jesus and
the Gospels. Eds. Wolfgang Stegmann,
Bruce J. Malina and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002.
175-183. Print.
Malina, Bruce J. “Social-Scientific Methods in
Historical Jesus Research.” The Social
Setting of
Jesus and
the Gospels. Eds. Wolfgang Stegmann,
Bruce J. Malina and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. 3-26.
Print.
Neyrey, Jerome H.
Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew.
Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1998. Print.
Rohrbaugh, Richard L. “Ethnocentrism and
Historical Questions about Jesus,” The
Social Setting
of Jesus
and the Gospels. Eds. Wolfgang
Stegmann, Bruce J. Malina and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
2002. 27-44. Print.
Stegemann, Wolfgang. “The Contextual Ethics of
Jesus.” The Social Setting of Jesus and
the
Gospels.
Eds. Wolfgang Stegmann, Bruce J.
Malina and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. 45-62. Print.
vanAarde, Andries. “Jesus as a Fatherless
Child.” The Social Setting of Jesus and
the Gospels.
Eds. Wolfgang Stegmann, Bruce J. Malina and Gerd
Theissen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. 65-84. Print.
