Theo 424 Early Christianity Session 6: Roman Household

Rev. Jacquelyn E. Winston, Ph.D.

Page 1

Reading assignment: Jeffers 237-257; Course Reader 34-40 (deSilva 178-183; Torjesen 55-59;
Leftkowitz 96, 102).
I.

Roman Household a producing and consuming unit (deSilva 179) home based
business. Called a patrimony by Veyne a household (oikos) under the management of
the father (141).
A.

B.

Members of the household:

1.

Paterfamilias in the Roman household, the father of the family exercised

power over wife and children, and even over married sons until the sons
release from his fathers power (potestas), usually the fathers death (Jeffers
242).

2.

Materfamilias the mother of the household, who was viewed as equal in

nature with the husband, but unequal in the roles they played (deSilva
180). According to Aristotle, the husband exercised constitutional rule
over his wife (Aristotle, Pol. 1.12) a difference of outward forms, names,
and titles of respect created as occurs in a monarchy.

3.

Children children of a legal marriage belonged to the father, and children

of slaves were the property of the master (Jeffers 246). Fathers were strict
providers of structure for their sons, while mothers were expected to
provide moral guidance (Jeffers 247). Roman children were nursed by
wet nurses, not by aristocratic mothers, but Philo encouraged this
physical contact between Jewish mothers and their children (Jeffers 248).
In Jewish households, Philo makes the education of children fully the
responsibility of the father, including their moral formation [probably the
sons] (Philo, On the Special Laws 2.29; Jeffers 253).

4.

Slaves slaves could marry another slave with permission of his/her

master, but it was not a legal marriage recognized by Roman law (Jeffers
238). Any children were illegitimate and took their status from the
mother. Aristotle defined a slave as a living tool (Pol. 1.4) and said some
people were slaves by nature (deSilva 190-191).

5.

Freedmen/freedwomen & clients former slaves freed by the masters

continued a dependent relationship with their former master serving as
their patron. In this role, the paterfamilias gave gifts and money to clients
who followed his retinue and provided him with information or served in
other ways (Jeffers 192). These individuals did not live with the
paterfamilias but were still considered part of his household (deSilva 174)

Marriage Jews in Greco-Roman period tended toward endogamous marriages

(members of same tribe or at least Jews) while Romans tended towards

Theo 424 Early Christianity Session 6: Roman Household

Rev. Jacquelyn E. Winston, Ph.D.

Page 2

exogamous marriages (outside ones clan) for strategic alliances (deSilva 174-177).
Marriages were normally arranged by parents.
1.

Marriage age 12-18 for Roman girls, minimum age for boys 14, but many
men married as late as 30.

2.

Legal marriage recognized by Roman government, by late republic the

wife did not come under her husbands complete authority (sine manus),
her father remained her legal guardian and if she divorced her dowry was
to be returned (Jeffers 238). According to Jeffers, this gave wife more
independence.

3.

Informal marriages did not offer legal protections, children were

illegitimate and status derived from mother (Jeffers 238).

4.

Roman sexuality within and outside of marriage

a)
b)

c)
d)
e)

f)

5.

Although Jeffers says married couples were passionate (Jeffers

241), the sources seem to contradict this conclusion (cf. deSilva
178; Plutarch, Advice on Marriage 16).
According to Veyne, the wedding night was a legal rape of the
bride (34). This ritual seemed to mimic the foundation of Roman
society (the rape [or abduction] of the Sabine women under the
leadership of Romulus, the founder of Rome). These attitudes
mirror the Roman view of male sexuality based on dominance.
Although Roman literature emphasized companionship as a virtue
of Roman marriage, it also stressed that wives should be glad their
husbands had mistresses and prostitutes (deSilva 178).
Public displays of affection between husband and wife were
viewed negatively (Jeffers 241).
Adultery - functionally, women were treated as property;
therefore, adultery was not a crime against a mans spouse, rather a
crime against another mans property (his wife). (deSilva 181). It
was only adultery if the liaison was conducted with a married
woman of respectable status.
Homosexuality not viewed as in modern context. In Roman
society, heterosexual and homosexual behaviors were viewed
equally as long as the patrician male was the aggressor. However,
it was illegal to commit fornication with unmarried respectable
women as well homosexual acts with aristocratic boys (Jeffers
246).

Jeffers marriage of a patrician to a slave was cause for social ostracism

(239). More than that it was illegal according to the lex Julia et Poppaea
(Leftkowitz 102).

Theo 424 Early Christianity Session 6: Roman Household

Rev. Jacquelyn E. Winston, Ph.D.
C.

Household codes (Haustafeln) in Bible regarding submission in household to

patriarchal hierarchy derived from Aristotle (deSilva 229-230).
1.

New Testament texts containing household codes Eph. 5:22-6:9; Col.

3:18-4:1; I Pet. 2:18-3:7. deSilva says these passages are part of the larger
household code of the New Testament which is prefaced by the directive
to be subject to one another (Eph. 5:21). His point: mutual love, unity,
and cooperation are the relational context for the enactment of the
household codes (deSilva 231).

2.

According to Aristotle, the husband had dominance over wife on the

basis of constitution, not nature (Pol. 1.2) (deSilva 180). Their natures
were equal, but unequal in the roles they played.

3.

Emphasized public and private arenas of men and women men

(polis/state), women (oikos/house). Also emphasized certain
characteristics of women such as silence, avoiding going out in public
without husband, body covered, should share her husbands religion
(deSilva 183-185).

4.

Although a man was master of his home (paterfamilias), wife had same
degree of authority in the home (materfamilias) (deSilva 182).

5.

Torjesen emphasizes women who were heads of households and the same
authority they wielded as male heads of households including that all in
the household shared the religion of the materfamilias, e.g. Lydia in Acts 10
& 16 (54-55).

6.

Three ways of understanding the actual practice of household codes in NT

times according to Torjesen (58):
a)
b)
c)

D.

Page 3

Household understood in context of state (polis) enforcing the

juridical authority of the male vs. the subordination of women;
Contrasting male and female gender roles by aligning them with
the state (polis) and household (oikos) with women in the private
sphere of the home and men in the public arena of the state;
Texts which focus on the house demonstrate male management
outdoors and female management indoors.

Education
1.

Among poorer classes - rudimentary skills taught by parents in the

household (Jeffers 253).

Theo 424 Early Christianity Session 6: Roman Household

Rev. Jacquelyn E. Winston, Ph.D.

Page 4

2.

Christian parents said by Jeffers to educate their children, but also in

NT and early church, education occurred in context of the congregation
(Jeffers 253-4; I Clement 21:6-8).

3.

Roman upper classes Subjects: Greek language emphasized over Latin

(until Diocletian in late 3rd c.), minimal math, geometry, and music, with
primary emphasis on rhetoric through literature (which did have
philosophy as its basis) (Jeffers 255). Boys and girls educated equally to
age 14, when boy became a voting citizen.

4.

Method of learning rote memorization and commentary by teacher

(Jeffers 256). After elementary school to age ten, secondary or grammar
school was attended by boys between 12-15/16. This included learning the
progymnasmata (memorized rhetorical exercises based on literary
commonplaces about humans, nature, & cultural characteristics). Higher
education focused on rhetoric involving learning the parts of a wellconstructed speech.

References
Aristotle, Pol. 1.12-13.
Clement of Rome, I Clement 21:6-8.
deSilva, David. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000, 33-34,
174-183.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities 2.25.5. Loeb Classical Library.
Jeffers, James. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1999, 237-257.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Maureen Fant. Womens Life in Greece & Rome. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press, 1992, 96, 102.
Long, George. Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea, in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Edited by
William Smith. London: John Murray, 1875: 691-692.
Philo, On the Special Laws 2.29.
Plutarch, Advice on Marriage 16, 31, 32.
Smith, William, Domus, in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Edited by William Smith.
London: John Murray, 1875: 426-432.
Torjesen, Karen. When Women Were Priests. New York: Harper-San Francisco, 1995, 55-59.
Veyne, Paul, ed. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. A History of Private
Life, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987, 33-41, 139159.
Xenophon, Oeconomicus 3.10-15; 9.14-15.