1
The Bible and Homosexuality
Some notes on the biblical references and how they have been interpreted
June 2002, revised 2018
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
Summary: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe male to male anal intercourse and condemn it as abhorrent to Yahweh and therefore not to be practiced. It was rejected by the Hebrews simply because it was rejected by Yahweh.
Social factors for the prohibition are not easy to discern. There is no reference in the laws to differences or changes in social status; the concept of pollution is not directly related in the context; and various ideas concerning semen do not seem to be relevant. The terminology of the commands implies that receptivity was appropriate to women, not men, but it is not clear that this was the reason for the prohibitions.
Context: These two statements are found in the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17- 26). A key concept is ‘separateness’. The laws are presented in the context of not doing what other nations do (18:3, 20:24). The people of Israel are given a choice: to obey Yahweh, or not to obey Yahweh (26:3 ff, cf. 26:14 ff), simply because they are Yahweh’s people (26:11-13). No other justification is deemed necessary, and therefore no other justification is given.
Leviticus 18:22 we'et zakar lo tishkab mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba hi'
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 we'ish 'aser yishkab 'et zakar mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba 'asu shenehem mot yumatu demehem bam
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Context: Chapter 20 is arranged in an ABCBA form:
A vv 1-6 Warning against giving children to Molech, and the use of mediums. B vv 7-8 Call to holiness C vv9-21 Sins against family (mostly sexual) B vv 22-26 Call to holiness reiterated, with the warning that they should not live by the customs of the nations of the lands they are going to enter. A v27 Warning against mediums and spiritists
Terminology: zakar—male 2
mishkebe ishsha—literally ‘to li.e. (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman’—penetration of the male, by analogy with mishkebe zakar, ‘male vaginal penetration’, i.e. penetration of the vagina by a male (receptive intercourse). Numbers 31 uses mishkebe zakar to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non-virgins (v17); cf. Judges 21:11-12.1 Support for this interpretation may be found in the Talmud. The phrase ‘to li.e. the lying down of a woman’ in y.Qidd. 1:1, 58c and b.Yebam. 546 indicates that anal penetration was the act which defined homosexual intercourse. to’eba—translated ‘abomination’ A ‘transgression of a divinely sanctioned boundary’;2 a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention.3
Cultic and idolatrous practice The use of to’eba is important. Elsewhere in the OT (e.g. Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; Ezekiel 6:9, 11; 7:20; 8:4-18; 14:6; 16:36, 43, 44-58; 18:12-13; 20:7; 22:2) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples. The use of to’eba gives the homoerotic activity a cultic or idolatrous significance; the references to child sacrifice in 18:21 and the giving of children to Molech in 20:1-5 indicate a concern with cultic practices in these passages.
Both the verses share similar terminology and so will be examined together.
1. Who? The word zakar is used to refer to the passive partner in the act. The word means ‘male’ rather than ‘man’ or ‘youth’; by using the word for ‘male’ the author has covered all potential participants in the act.
There is no mention in either of the verses of the relative status of the offenders. It would appear that this law, like the rest of the Hebrew laws, apply to all residents of Israel without regard to social status.
2. What? The phrase mishkebe 'ishsha literally means ‘to li.e. (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman’.Olyan argues that, by analogy with mishkab zakar, it refers to receptive intercourse only.4 Mishkab zakar means ‘male vaginal penetration’, i.e. the penetration of the vagina by a male. Both Olyan and Wold hold that mishkebe 'ishsha is the female corollary of this.5 Numbers 31 uses mishkebe 'ishsha to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non- virgins (v17). Judges 21:11-12 uses the phrase for the same purpose. It likely refers to the occurrence or non-occurrence of vaginal penetration. Olyan goes further to say that if the range of meaning of mishkebe 'ishsha is as limited as that of mishkab zakar, then in Leviticus mishkebe 'ishsha must refer
1 Saul M. Olyan, ‘‘And With A Male You Shall Not Li.e. the Lying Down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/2 (1994), pp. 185- 6. 2 Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 39. 3 Olyan, op.cit., p. 180 n. 3; Daniel Boyarin, ‘Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/3 (1995), p. 334 n. 3. 4 Olyan, op. cit., pp. 194-6. 5 Ibid., p. 185; Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 107.
3
to penetration of the male.6 This is then a prohibition merely of male penetration of the male, that is, anal intercourse.
3. Why? a. to'eba Each of the offences in Leviticus 18 are to'eba, or abomination (18:29), a word which is used six times in Leviticus (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). What constitutes to'eba?
There appears to be general agreement that to'eba refers to a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention.7 In this context and others (e.g. Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; and throughout Ezekiel) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples.
But why are these particular deeds labelled as to'eba? What characteristics of these deeds are so reprehensible that they are prohibited? b. Penalties/sanctions It is possible that some light may be shed through looking at the penalties decreed for these deeds. Two different penalties are designated in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the death penalty and the kereth or ‘cutting off’. i. Death penalty The death penalty is prescribed in the words mot yumatu ‘they shall certainly be put to death’. There appear to be three categories of transgression in the Holiness Code for which death is the punishment: crimes which usurp the place of God (20:2, 27; 24:16); crimes against family (20:9); and sexual crimes (20:10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16). Elsewhere it is applied to the crime of killing a human being (14:17). ii. kereth The word kereth means ‘to be cut off’ (Leviticus 18:29). kereth is applied to crimes against God (17:3- 4, 8-9, 10; 19:5-8, 20:2-5, 6; 21:3; 23:29), including sexual transgressions (18:29, 20:17, 18), rather than against neighbours. It is probable that kereth involved a response by God. In Leviticus 23:29 kereth is prescribed for not humbling oneself on the Day of Atonement; in v. 30 a related offence, working on the Day of Atonement, incurs destruction by God from among his people. This seems to relate to the person’s place in the community of Israel, with its history and destiny, as well as personal annihilation. Based on a study of synonymous and antithetical terms, Wold describes kereth as ‘a conditional divine curse of extinction, obliterating the sinner (and progeny) from any role in the drama of Israel’s history’.8 kereth and the death penalty are different punishments. In some instances both sanctions are prescribed for the same or similar offences. In Leviticus 20:2 the death penalty is declared for the man who gives up his children to Molech; the next verse indicates that he will also be kereth from among his people. Consultation of a medium or spiritist (20:6) incurs kereth; but in 20:27 death is prescribed for a similar offence. The two sanctions are clearly not the same. kereth is a divine sanction, carried out by God. The death penalty is a community sanction. Wold suggests that kereth is an action of divine justice, to deal with cases of impurity when the community
6 Olyan, op.cit., pp. 185-6. 7 Ibid., p. 180 n. 3; Boyarin, op.cit., p. 334 n. 3. 8 Wold, op.cit., p. 147. 4
is either unaware of the offence or unable to find a sufficient number of witnesses to the offence to effect community justice.9 This implies that on occasion the community would be able to do nothing (e.g. 20:4-5) and leave the matter to God.
The implications for sexual offences, and homosexual behaviour in particular, are significant. By their nature these acts are difficult to detect, let alone prove. Although it was applicable, there is no record of the death penalty (or any penalty) being applied to homosexual offenders. The community may have suspected an offence had occurred, but in the absence of proof could merely have waited for God to apply kereth in his own time, the impurity caused by the offence being dealt with at the next Day of Atonement.10 c. Other possible reasons i. Feminization of the male Olyan notes that the terminology suggests that receptivity is appropriate only for females—a male must experience mishkebe 'ishsha with women only.11 It could therefore be argued that, in a male- dominated society like that of the Hebrews, the problem is that a male is being acted upon as a female. This does not take into account that 18:22 addresses only the inserter; and that the verses surrounding both of these commands address a variety of sexual acts which are not related to the ‘feminization’ of a male, or a similar change in status. The focus of the prohibitions in Leviticus is the behaviour itself, not the implications of being penetrated. ii. Male cultic prostitution Are these commands references to male cultic prostitution? Boswell claims that the laws in Leviticus are aimed at temple prostitution rather than homosexual behaviour in general.12 This is possible if we read Leviticus 18:21 and 20:1-5 as references to cultic practices. But elsewhere in the Holiness Code there are no references to sexual practices for cultic purposes; and references to other kinds of alien cultic customs are implied rather than explicit (19:4, 26; 20:6, 23; 26:1). There is nothing to indicate that cultic prostitution is an issue in these sections. iii. The misuse of semen a. Pollution The concept of ‘pollution’ serves as a ‘shorthand’ term for the mystical danger from any event, attitude or action which threatened social order.13 Events such as childbirth and marriage are potentially catastrophic or life-changing, and there is ‘pollution’ inherent in the events and things associated with them, such as body fluids and discharges.
This might serve as a blanket explanation for the sexual laws; an examination of the references to semen in Leviticus (15:16, 17, 18, 32; 22:4) indicates that it is in fact regarded as polluting. But the chapters 18 and 22 do not mention semen; pollution/defiling is a theme of Leviticus 18 (e.g. vv 24- 28) but semen is not directly implicated. It remains only a possible solution, not certain.
9 Wold, op.cit., p. 144. 10 Ibid. 11 Olyan, op.cit., p. 188. 12 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 101 n. 34. 13 Stephen F. Bigger, “The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 98/2 (1979), p. 195. 5
b. Mixture Olyan sees ‘mixing’ as important, possibly a primary, organising element.14 This may be the intention behind the prohibition on sex with a menstrual woman (18:19), and the potential for mixing semen with that of other men during intercourse with various female relatives may have motivated the prohibitions in 18:7, 8, 14-16.
Applied to the homosexuality texts, the intention may have been to prevent mixing of excrement and semen, two defiling substances.15 But as Olyan notes there is no reciprocal ban on anal intercourse with a woman,16 which would be essential if mixing was the guiding theme. c. Wastage A third factor is that of the wastage of seed. Semen expended in extramarital sexual activities would not be available for procreation. But there is no reference in the Holiness Code to the notion that male and female only should couple and procreate. Masturbation and fellatio to orgasm would have been condemned on this principal, however the status of those activities is unknown. Given that the Bible nowhere addresses semen as a theme in itself (Onan’s offence in Genesis 38:9, 10 was not that he wasted his seed, but that he refused to give his brother an heir), and accords it no particular mystical significance (such as being the ‘seat of life’), it is unlikely that wastage of semen was the motivation for any of the sexual laws.
LXX
18:22 kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynikeian, bdelygma gar esti
20:13 kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos, bdelygma epoieso amphoteroi
Reflects the Hebrew usage: 18:22—ou koimethese koiten (‘do not sleep the sleep of a woman’) 20:13—hos an koimethe ….. koiten (‘neither sleep the sleep of a woman’)
Terminology: arsenos = zakar bdelygma = to’eba, with an increased emphasis on the notion of impurity. (LXX Exekiel 5:7, 9,11; 6:9,11; 7:3-4, 8-9, 20; 36:31; 33:26-29 refers to pollution generated by sin.17 This suggests that by the time of the LXX the concept of abomination had become explicitly linked to impurity.)
An examination of the LXX versions of the references indicates how the concepts were interpreted closer to Paul’s time, i.e. c. mid 3rd century BCE.
Both verses reflect the Hebrew original in the use of arsenos to represent zakar. Most uses of arsen (of which arsenos is the singular genitive form) in LXX refer to ‘male’ rather than ‘man’. It is usually opposed to phelys or ‘female’ (e.g. Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:19f; 7:2f; 9:15 f; Lev 3:1, 6; 12:7), and thus refers to gender. The alternative would have been anthropos, which is used by the LXX to refer to humanity, man and woman (e.g. Genesis 1:26).
14 Olyan, op.cit, p. 202. 15 Ibid., p. 203. 16 Ibid., p. 203 n. 81. 17 Wold, op.cit, p. 112. 6
The use of ou koimethese koiten (‘do not sleep the sleep of a woman’) in 18:22, and the similar expression in 20:13 (hos an koimethe ….. koiten ‘neither sleep the sleep of a woman’) also reflects Hebrew usage. The verb in both verses takes passive forms, which in 18:22 would imply that the receiver is condemned rather than the perpetrator; however the verb koimao (‘sleep’) has the same forms in the passive voice as the middle, making it more than likely that it is a deponent verb, that is, takes an active meaning. This grammatical anomaly is of course irrelevant in 20:13, in which both parties are condemned. bdelygma is literally ‘abomination’ or ‘detestable thing’, as in the Hebrew however the LXX emphasises the notion of impurity which is only hinted at in the original.18 Each of the twelve occurrences in Ezekiel (5:7, 9,11; 6:9,11; 7:3-4, 8-9, 20; 36:31; 33:26-29) refers to pollution generated by sin.19 This suggests that by the time of the LXX the concept of abomination had become explicitly linked to impurity.
Deuteronomy 23:17,18
Summary: Commentators cite Deuteronomy 23:17, 18 as evidence for ‘male cultic prostitution’. While it is unlikely that the qadeshim/qadeshot functioned in that way, it is certain that the Hebrew mind understood it to be so. This might provide context for the prohibition in Leviticus.
Text: None of the daughters of Israel shall be a qedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a qedesh. You shall not bring the hire of a zona or the wages of a keleb into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.
Terminology: qedesh (m.; f. qedeshah)—literally ‘someone who is sacred’; traditionally translated ‘sodomite’/’male prostitute’ (qedeshah as ‘prostitute’). Masculine form also occurs in 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. zona—female prostitute keleb—literally ‘dog’, traditionally thought to refer to male prostitute. The joining of zona (female prostitute) to keleb in this verse suggests a sexual meaning. Of 30 uses or variants of the word in the Hebrew Bible this is the only one that has this connotation. However see the comments on the assinu, below.
It is almost certain that the kelebim (v18) performed sexual services, however it is unclear what the exact nature of these services was, and whether they were homosexual or heterosexual. Therefore the passage should not be regarded as a direct condemnation of homosexual acts.
18 W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. 1979), pp. 137-8. 19 Wold, ibid. 7
Qedeshim/qedeshot, idolatry and sexual transgression qedeshim/qedeshot were connected to the to’eba of the dispossessed nations (1 Kings 14:24) and idolatry (1 Kings 15:12); cf. 2 Kings 23:7 qedeshim involved in non-Hebrew religious practices in the Temple.
A series of traditions posits sacramental sexual activity in ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamian societies. Many texts refer to the existence of the assinu, kurgarru and kulu'u—male devotees of Ishtar who took feminine characteristics, and probably performed erotic acts as part of their duties.20,21 Nissinen notes that UR.SAL (the cuneiform sign for assinu) means ‘dog’ or ‘man/woman’.22
However there is some doubt as to whether qedeshim/qedeshot were actually cultic prostitutes. Westenholz examines the ancient references to the qdsh (North Syria), the qadishtu-woman (Mesopotamia), and the nu-gig (Sumer) and finds no evidence of illicit sexual activity among their functions.23 No compound term linking the ideas of cultic service and prostitution is found in any of the cultures in question.24
Bird argues that the terms qedesh and zona are not synonymous. The impression of parallelism in Deut 23:18,19 is created by the occurrence of qdsh-qds and zwnh-klb, in successive verses, in the unusual order of female-male—’a parallelism created by editorial activity’.25 In this reading v18 proscribes the existence of a ‘professional class’ (qedesh-qedeshot) within the Israelites, where v19 prohibits an action, the dedication of income from sexual commerce.26
However the link between qedeshot and sexual transgression exists elsewhere in the Biblical materials. In Hosea 4:14 the parallelism of the verse emphasises the link:
A the daughters will not be punished when they act as zona B nor the brides when they commit adultery A1 for the men go with the hazonaot B1 and offer sacrifices with haqedeshot
Nissinen notes that every biblical occurrence of qedeshah is paralleled with zona (female practicing illicit sex) and sees it as a conscious association of the two terms.27 Qedeshah is linked to illicit sexual activity in Genesis 38. In the story of Judah and Tamar Judah regards Tamar as a zona (38:15) and has sex with her. He later describes her as a qedeshah (38:21), and her family describe her as a zona in 38:24.
20 Nissinen, op.cit, pp. 28-34, 41. 21 See also survey in David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 94-99. 22 Nissinen, op.cit, p. 41. 23 Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Tamar, qedesa, qadistu, and sacred prostitution in Mesopotamia”, Harvard Theological Review, 82:3 (1989), p. 248. 24 Phyllis A. Bird, "The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qades-Qadesim," in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume—Cambridge 1995 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 38. 25 Ibid., p. 48. 26 Ibid., p. 47. 27 Nissinen, op.cit, p. 40. 8
It would be reasonable to conclude that qedesh/qedeshah refer to a functionary of non-Hebrew religions, the exact functions of which are unknown, but concerning which sexual connotations developed in Hebrew thought. It is important to remember that it is the perception of such activity that is significant. The Hebrews believed such an activity to exist, and they condemned it.
LXX ouk estai porne apo thygateron Israel, kai ouk estai porneuon apo huion Israel; ouk estai telesphoros apo thygateron Israel, kai ouk estai teliskomenos apo huion Israel.
ou prosoiseis nisthoma pornes, oude allagma kynos eis ton oikon kyriou tou theo sou pros pasan euchen, hoti bdelygma kyrio to theo sou esti kai amphotera.
None of the daughters of Israel shall be a porne, neither shall any of the sons of Israel be porneuon; none of the daughters of Israel shall be a telesphoros, neither shall of the sons of Israel be a teliskomenos.
You shall not bring the fee of a pornes nor the wages of a kynos into the house of the Lord your God for payment of a vow, for these are an abomination to the Lord your God.
Terminology: porneuon (m), porne (f) (prostitute, harlot) = qedesh/qedeshah teliskomenos/telesphoros—‘an intitiate’—from telesphoreo, which also means ‘to pay toll or custom’ (Xenophon, Vect. 3.5; noted in LSJ).
The LXX first translates verse 17 then provides an expansion of it, using different terminology that reflects a different interpretation of the text.
In the first part of verse 17 the words qedesh/qedeshah of the original are represented by the feminine porne (BAGD prostitute, harlot), and the masculine form porneuo (BAGD to prostitute, practice prostitution or sexual immorality generally). This implies a sexual element to the translators' understanding of the qedesh/qedeshah.
The verse is then expanded by an almost direct repetition of the first part, but with different words for porne/porneuon. The substitutions have related meanings which provide a link to verse 18 which is not present in the Hebrew original.
Replacing porne is telesphoros, meaning ‘an initiate’. This reflects the religious connotation of qedeshah. But added significance comes from its relation to telesphoreo, of which the alternative meaning ‘to pay toll or custom’ has been noted.28 Teliskomenos, substituted for porneuon, also means ‘an initiate’. It has a similar related meaning through its derivation from teleo, which in Classical and Attic usage has the meaning to pay what one owes, or what is due, the latter of which extends to a religious sense.29 The words were probably chosen to reflect the religious connotations of the translators' conception of the qedesh/qedeshah, however there is an indirect link to the concept of vow-paying mentioned in verse 18. Van der Toorn applies the concept to the woman of Proverbs 7:6-23, who resorts to prostitution as the only means to pay money she owes through her vows. The suggestion is that in certain circumstances prostitution may have been regarded by some as an appropriate way to meet votive commitments, as long as the money was designated for the
28 Xenophon, Vect. 3.5. 29 G. Delling, ‘teleo’, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, tr. Geoffrey Bromiley, 9 vols, 1964-1974), vol. VIII pp. 57-8. 9
Temple treasury. Thus qedeshim/qedeshot and keleb/zona are not synonyms but parallels—two sets of people having differing reasons to resort to prostitution.30
Verse 18 presents more straightforward terminology. Reflecting the sexual emphasis of the original, it represents zona with pornes ‘of a harlot’, and keleb with kunos ‘of a dog.’ The use of kuno to represent a male prostitute in Rev 22:15 suggests that the idiom was current in the 1st century CE.
Sodom and Gibeah
Sodom – Genesis 19:1-11 Gibeah – Judges 19
Summary: Two similar stories, that of Lot (Genesis 19:1-11) and the unnamed Levite and his concubine (Judges 19), describe threatened same-sex rape. It is commonly accepted that these passages do not concern homosexuality but are about the abuse of hospitality through sexual violence.
Neither narrative has anything to do with same-sex inclination. They illustrate homosexual intentions as a weapon, as a tool of power rather than as an expression of desire. Therefore it is inappropriate to use these passages as evidence for an argument against homosexuality
Texts: Genesis 19:5 And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’ (NRSV)
Judges 19:22b ‘Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may know him.’
Terminology: yada – literally ‘know’ – here, to have intercourse with. Semantic equivalents from surrounding cultures: Egyptian rh ‘to know’ is often substituted in texts for nk ‘have intercourse with’; the Ugaritic yd ‘know’ is used for copulation in a text concerning Baal and Anat; and the Akkadian idu ‘know’ is used in a sexual sense in §130 of the Code of Hammurapi.31
LXX Gen 19:5 hina syngenometha autois, ‘so that we might be with them’ – syngenometha is used in Genesis 39:10 ‘to be with her’ describing Potiphar’s wife’s attempted seduction of Joseph. Syngenometha is used of sexual intercourse widely in both Jewish and Classical literature (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39; Anabasis 1.2.12; Republic 329c; Plato Laws 930d; Herodotus 2.121 E).
Some interpreters focus on the intended homosexual rape of the men and conclude that homosexuality is to be condemned because of this. But on this logic heterosexuality is also to be condemned, because we have the stories of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) and of Tamah (2 Samuel 13). Nissinen notes that the account of the heterosexual assault on the concubine in Judges 19 is structurally equivalent to the story of Sodom, however no later interpreter has condemned heterosexual behaviour on the basis of this incident.32
30 Karel Van der Toorn, “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 108/2 (1989), pp. 198-201. 31 Wold, op. cit., pp. 83, 84. 32 Nissinen, op. cit., p. 51. 10
The suggestion that the interest of the men is merely social is negated by the men’s violence, forcing their way into Lot’s house. Of this Greenberg comments, ‘Surely they would not have done so had the mob only wanted to engage in a friendly chat.’33
The key to explaining the homoerotic references in the Sodom and Gibeah stories lies in a study of the gender and power relations evident in the stories. The locals wanted to penetrate the visitors sexually, to humiliate them. To permit this to happen would have been a breach of hospitality. Instead, Lot at Sodom and the Levite at Gibeah offer their women, for whom it would have been appropriate to be sexually penetrated. The prospect of homosexual rape is regarded as more serious than that of heterosexual rape, although both are regarded as evil acts.
References to the sin of Sodom in Jewish writings
Summary: Of Jewish texts before the Common Era (CE, or AD), only C1 BCE texts directly point to homoerotic behaviour as a sin of Sodom; the other texts that clearly identify a sin point to the attitudes of arrogance and injustice, or unspecified sexual immorality or heterosexual behaviour. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that homoerotic behaviour is the sin for which Sodom was destroyed or even notorious.
A. Biblical references In two of the four references in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, Sodom’s sin is unspecified (Gen 13.13, 18.20).
Jeremiah 23:14 But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a more shocking thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from their wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah. (NRSV)
Ezekiel 16:48-50 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. (49) This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (50) They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (NRSV)
B. Second Temple texts 1. Sirach (Ben Sira, or Ecclesiasticus) -written in Hebrew at Jerusalem in about 190 BCE, and translated into Greek by Ben Sira’s grandson in Egypt in 132BCE.
He did not spare the neighbours of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance. (16:8) (NRSV)
33 Greenberg, op. cit., p. 136. 11
2. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs These writings are regarded as dating from mid-2nd century to mid-1st century BCE. The consensus among scholars is that they were originally Jewish documents, with Christian interpolations added later. a. Testament of Levi 14:6 This text is part of Levi’s prediction of the future of his descendants:
You teach the Lord’s commands out of greed for gain; married women you profane; you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take gentile women for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. (OTP I)
There is no mention of homosexual acts; every act cited relates to male/female intercourse. b. Testament of Naphtali 3:4, 5; 4.1
3.4 In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all the products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature. 3.5 Likewise the watchers departed from nature’s order; the Lord pronounced a curse on them at the Flood. On their account he ordered that the earth be without dweller or produce. 4.1 I say these things, my children, because I have read in the writing of holy Enoch that you also will stray from the Lord, living in accordance with every wickedness of the gentiles and committing every lawlessness of Sodom. (OTP I)
These verses should be read in the context of chapters 4-5. The theme of these chapters is the choice of people to depart from God’s will. The Law of God represents order, and the choice of many is to disobey that law and choose disorder.
Verse 3 gives an example of this ‘change of order’—the gentiles have forsaken the Lord and have ‘devoted themselves to sticks and stones.’ Sodom’s departure from the order of nature, rather than being sexual, takes the form of idolatry. Naphtali’s listeners are exhorted to look to creation to discern God, rather than become like Sodom.
It should be noted that 3:5 mentions the departure of the Watchers from nature’s order; this may be a reference to sexual sin (cf. Gen 6:4, which refers to male/female intercourse). However in the context of the whole passage it is the sin of turning from the way of the Lord which is the focus; 3:5 merely demonstrates that this sin is manifested in a variety of ways. c. Testament of Asher 7.1
Do not become like Sodom, which did not recognise the Lord’s angels and perished forever. (OTP I) d. Testament of Benjamin 9.1 A major theme of the book is the way of the good man, in which the Lord dwells in him (6:4, cf. 8:3). If his mind is pure, he will not look on a woman with lust (8:2). Then Benjamin says:
From the words of Enoch the righteous I tell you that you will be sexually promiscuous like the promiscuity of the Sodomites and will perish, with few exceptions. You shall resume 12
your actions with loose women, and the kingdom of the Lord will not be among you, for he will take it away forthwith. (OTP I)
In both chapters 8 and 9 there is only mention of male/female intercourse. The sin of Sodom in this case is heterosexual promiscuity. From this position of sexual excess it is easy to posit a crossing over to homoerotic behaviour, however this is not implicit in the passage.
3. Jubilees A re-writing and expansion of the book of Genesis, Jubilees was most likely written c100BCE by a Jew living in Palestine. Two important themes of the book, sexual immorality and injustice (cf. 7:20-21) are reflected in the Sodom references (with the exception of 13:17, which does not specify a sin.)
16:5-6 And in that month the Lord executed the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah and Zeboim and all of the district of the Jordan. And he burned them with fire and sulphur and he annihilated them till this day just as (he said), Behold, I have made known to you all of their deed that (they were) cruel and great sinners and they were polluting themselves and they were fornicating in their flesh and they were causing pollution upon the earth. (6) And thus the Lord will execute judgement like the judgement of Sodom on places where they act according to the pollution of Sodom. (OTP II)
This passage specifies the categories of acts for which judgement was executed on Sodom. They are in general terms only: ‘cruel and great sinners’, ‘polluting themselves’, ‘fornicating in their flesh’, ‘causing pollution upon the earth’; no specific deeds, attitudes or behaviours are cited.
Jubilees 16:7-9 notes the sin of Lot and his daughters: ‘the man lay with his daughters’. The following judgement is recorded:
(9) And behold it is commanded and it is engraved concerning all of his seed in the heavenly tablets that he will remove them and uproot them and execute their judgement just like the judgement of Sodom and so that he will not leave seed of man for him on the earth in the day of judgement. (OTP II)
The use of the phrase ‘the judgement of Sodom’ (cf. 16:6) in this context suggests a judgement for Sodom based on a wider range of disobedient acts than homosexual acts, or it would not be applicable to Lot and his daughters, of whom it is recorded nowhere that they participated in such behaviour.
In the Jubilees version of Abraham’s farewell discourse he warns against fornication as having brought been the reason for the destruction of the giants as well as Sodom:
20:5-6 And on account of their fornication and impurity and the corruption among themselves with fornication they died. (OTP II)
The sins listed here are the general term ‘fornication’, leading to impurity. In this the passage reflects 16:5-6, and adds no further information.
13
4. 3 Maccabees This romance was probably written c100 BCE in Alexandria.
2:5 You consumed with fire and sulfur the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for (or secret in) their vices; and you made them an example to those who should come afterward. (NRSV)
Again the sin of Sodom is presented as arrogance towards the Lord. The high priest Simon prays in response to the attempts of Ptolemy IV Philopator to enter the temple at Jerusalem. Simon praises the Lord for his punishment of those who were arrogant towards him in the past: the giants (v4), Sodom (v5), the Pharoah of the Exodus (vv6-7). The text mentions Sodom’s vices; these are not specified.
5. Wisdom of Solomon This work was written in Greek, probably in Alexandria, in the late 1st century BCE and possibly in the first decades of the next. A continuing theme is the folly of ignoring the way of Wisdom, the way one should go. This is reflected in the Sodom references.
10.8 For because they passed wisdom by, they not only were hindered from recognizing the good, but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly, so that their failures could never go unnoticed. (NRSV)
Sodom’s sin is that they ‘passed wisdom by’, and therefore could not recognise the good. In this regard the sin of Sodom is here described in a similar way to T.Naph. 3:4-4:1.
Sodom is not specifically mentioned in 19:13-17, but this is in keeping with the author’s practice of not using proper names. The passage describes Egypt’s punishment for having mistreated a people first received as guests, Israel. Egypt is compared with the unnamed Sodom, who is described as ‘having received strangers with hostility’ (v15). This passage tells us only of Sodom’s inhospitality, saying nothing of sexual sin. Because Egypt turned against her guest she will receive greater punishment than Sodom, who was hostile from the beginning.
6. 2 Enoch (Slavonic) In the J or longer recension of the Slavonic version, Enoch is taken to the ‘northern region’ between the third and fourth heavens, a place of torture and torment:
10:4 And I said, ‘Woe, woe! How very frightful this place is!’ And those men said to me, ‘This place, Enoch, has been prepared for those who do not glorify God, who practice on earth the sin | which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom |, of witchcraft, enchantments, divinations, trafficking with demons, who boast about their evil deeds—|stealing, lying, insulting, coveting, resentment, fornication, murder | -… (OTP I)
This is a description of pederasty, in the sense of adult/child intercourse rather than the pedagogic Greek model.
34:0 J | God convicts the persons who are idol worshippers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them. 34:2 J And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wickednesses and | abominable | fornications | that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report |, and the worship of (the) evil (one). (OTP I) 14
The author here describes adult sodomy.
While it is clear that these texts refer directly to male/male anal intercourse, they are not helpful for our discussion. Scholars cannot decide if it the book of Jewish or Christian origin; and there is no consensus on a date of origin, suggestions including Alexandria in 1st century BCE and Byzantium in 9th century CE. To further complicate the issue, these references to Sodom are found only in a single manuscript, P, which can be no older than the 14th century CE. In the absence of older manuscripts it is impossible to verify if P’s interpolations have a precedent.
7. Philo (c10BCE to 55CE) a. Quaestiones Et Solutiones in Genesin Philo discusses the events of Sodom in detail, however we will look here only at the passages which directly reflect on the nature of the sin of Sodom.
4:37, 38 37. (Gen. xix. 5) What is the meaning of the words, ‘Bring them out to us that we may know them’?
The literal meaning indicates servile. Lawless and unseemly pederasty. [Lit. ‘unseemly and male pederasty’]
38. (Gen. xix. 7-8) Why does lot say to them…?
The literal text very clearly shows that the Sodomites were pederasts…
Philo clearly interprets the sin of Sodom as homoerotic behaviour in the form of pederasty. He views pederasty through two contrasts: purity versus impurity, and masculine versus feminine. b. De Abraham 26:134-6 This paragraph comments on the geography and agriculture of Sodom and surrounds as they relate to Sodom’s sinfulness. It is possible that Philo was influenced in this by Ezekiel 16:48-50 (see above).
Philo introduces the discussion of Sodom’s sin in words suggesting excess and enormity: the land is ‘brimful of innumerable iniquities’, especially arising from gluttony and lewdness. (133) They ‘threw off from their necks the law of nature’ and resorted to ‘forbidden forms of intercourse’: not only with married women, but ‘men mounted males without the respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive’ (135).
Philo specifically identifies one of the sins of Sodom with homoerotic behaviour, defining it in terms of active/passive roles. He specifically states it in gender terms: ‘little by little as they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease’ (136).
Philo suggests that this behaviour is caused by the inability to remain satisfied in bountiful conditions. He places it further along the continuum of iniquity than intercourse with married women. But by placing it in the same category Philo sees it only as behaviour, not as the result of orientation. It is an example of sexual excess.
15
8. Josephus Jewish Antiquities (completed 93-94CE)
I.9.1 (194-5) Now about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.
Josephus does not comment on any sexual component of the sin of Sodom, but focusses only on arrogance. They show pride (hybristai) towards men and impiety (asebeiv) towards God. This is reflected in their attitude towards foreigners (194), a reference to the story of Genesis 19.
C. Conclusion It would appear that even in biblical times, and certainly by c100 BCE, Sodom was a byword for widescale arrogance and disobedience to God.
Of the above texts only Philo and 2 Enoch directly point to homoerotic behaviour as a sin of Sodom; of the other texts that clearly identify a sin, half point to the attitudes of arrogance and injustice, and half to unspecified fornication or heterosexual behaviour. An analysis of the sins by location of composition reveals no pattern.
We can conclude that homoerotic acts were not a major factor in descriptions of the sin of Sodom. It is incorrect to use the word ‘sodomy’ to describe homoerotic acts, and to do so betrays a preoccupation with one aspect only of the sin of Sodom.
Writings of the Second Temple Period
Summary: Second Temple texts condemn homoerotic behaviour on two bases: the transgression of gender roles, and the lack of procreative potential. It is important to keep these factors in mind when examining the New Testament references.
Origins of the documents The texts containing homoerotic references dating from the Second Temple period come mostly from diaspora Judaism. There appear to be no texts from Palestinian sources, although the Testament of Levi is probably Syrian, and Josephus wrote in Rome from a Palestinian point of view. But the important documents are Egyptian. Most refer to male homoeroticism, however two of the Alexandrian writers refer to female behaviour.
A. Sibylline Oracles IV The Sibylline Oracles are a group of documents written by Jewish writers and later redacted by Christian editors in imitation of the oracles collected by Augustus. Although generally presented together, each oracle is a separate document with separate origins.
The original oracles in Sib.Or.IV were probably written not long after the time of Alexander. Lines 33- 34 occur in a passage concerning righteous men (24-39), who put the great God before drinking and eating, reject idolatry and do not commit murder:
16
Neither have they disgraceful desire for another’s spouse or for hateful and repulsive abuse of a male. (OTP I)
The behaviour in question is difficult to ascertain. The context (the activities of good males) identifies the subject as male, hence the behaviour is homoerotic acts between men. The description ‘hateful and repulsive’ is a value judgement, describing the author’s attitude, not the behaviour. That it is an ‘abuse’ suggests not that it is a violent non-consensual act, but that to the author’s mind it is an illicit usage of the male. The ‘correct’ usage is that found in the marriage relationship, with the male as penetrator. It is plausible that this is what the author had in mind, considering that this behaviour is paired with adultery; this suggests a relationship between the two, probably as transgressions against marriage.
B. Sibylline Oracles III The original components of this document were probably written in Egypt probably during the reigns of Philometer and Physion (c. 163-45 BCE).
In a passage ‘prophesying’ the rise of Rome to domination of the region, the author describes the evil things that will occur until ‘the people of the great God’ will again become strong under ‘the seventh reign’ (ll. 192-3), that is, Ptolemy VI Philometer:
Male will have intercourse with male and they will set up boys in houses of ill fame and in those days there will be great affliction among men and it will throw everything into confusion. (185-7) (OTP I)
The author does not discriminate between sexual relations between adult men, and between men and boys; this is evident from the use of ‘males’, rather than ‘men’. This there is probably a criticism of adult homoeroticism. There is also an explicit observation on pederasty; perhaps the author is suggesting that boys involved in pederastic relationships have been prostituted, or are prostituting themselves.
Lines 595-600 appear in a section describing the virtues of the Jews (ll. 573-600):
they are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations of others, Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed. (OTP I)
This is a direct reference to pederasty, as a gentile/pagan practice. It is couples with a reference to marriage, providing a context which is also reflected in lines 764-66:
Avoid adultery and indiscriminate intercourse with males. Rear your offspring and do not kill it, for the immortal is angry at whoever commits these sins. (OTP I)
Here homoerotic behaviour is equated with adultery, as in Sib.Or.IV:33-34; and also with child- killing. Unlike the previous references it does not appear to refer to pederasty, but to promiscuous homosexuality.
17
C. Testament of Levi One of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, this is probably Syrian in provenance, with the original documents dating from during the Maccabean period. Levi prophesies to his descendants that they will become apostate and profane the priesthood for a period of seventy weeks (16:1). He foresees that ‘In the seventh week there will come priests: idolators, adulterers, money lovers, arrogant, lawless, voluptuaries, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.’ (17:11)
Pederasty is not singled out for discussion. But it is placed in a list of offences which are to be despised.
D. Letter of Aristeas Probably written by a Jew in Alexandria during the second half of the second century BCE, the Letter of Aristeas describes the purported circumstances of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Septuagint).
In a passage contrasting ‘the piety and sexual righteousness of the Jews and their law code’ with the behaviour of other peoples, the author has the high priest Eleazar say:
The majority of other men defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a serious offence, and lands and whole cities take pride in it: they not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters. We are quite separated from these practices. (152) (OTP II)
The meaning of the phrase ‘procure the males’ is unclear. It is more likely to refer to homoerotic activity between adult men than pederasty. The whole text is reminiscent of the Leviticus references in theme of defilement of the land through illicit sexual practices.
E. Pseudo-Phocylides This selection of maxims was probably written by a Jew in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (between 30 BCE and 37 CE), possibly in Alexandria.
The first reference to homoerotic behaviour is a simple command:
Neither commit adultery nor arouse homosexual passion. (3) (OTP II)
It does not refer to behaviours, but only to the arousal of desire. In view of the fact that desire leads to action, there is an implicit condemnation of homoerotic behaviour. Note also the pairing of homosexuality with adultery, suggesting that it is condemned as a behaviour in opposition to marriage.
The next reference appears in a passage discussing prohibited sexual behaviour (ll. 175-206)
Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. For even animals are not pleased by intercourse of male with male. And let women not imitate the sexual role of men. (lit. ‘marriage bed’) (190-2) (OTP II)
The ‘limits set by nature’ is a recurring concept in the discussion of this issue, becoming particularly significant to Philo (see below). Certain behaviours are prohibited because they transgress the gender roles appointed by nature. The ‘limit set by nature’ here is that male/male sex does not occur among the animals (an erroneous observation), which according to the author is because of some moral sense. 18
Line 191 clearly refers to homoerotic behaviour between males; line 192 is one of the rare references to female homoeroticism in the entire Jewish corpus. It most likely refers to sexual contact between women in which one partner penetrates the other. It is not the possibility of female-female erotic behaviour which would cause offence, but the performance of behaviour which is not appropriate for her gender role.
Gender roles also appear in ll. 210-12:
If a child is a boy do not let locks grow on (his) head. Do not braid (his) crown nor the cross knots at the top of (his) head. Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women. Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, because many rage for intercourse with a man. (210-14) (OTP II)
These lines warn against ‘feminizing’ young boys by allowing them to grow their hair long. The ‘limits set by nature’ are obviously an influence here, but ll. 213-14 reveal fear of pederasty. There is a clear reference to pederasty here. Although the Greeks considered 12-18 the permissible age for pederasty, the Jews could have judged this on their own standards. Thus a candidate for a pederastic relationship would still be considered a child in Jewish eyes.
F. Sibylline Oracles II An extension of Sib.Or. I, the Jewish stage of Sib.Or. II was probably written no earlier than 30 BCE. Line 73 is part of a section (ll. 56-77) which was actually extracted from Pseudo-Phocylides (ll. 5-79)
Do not practice homosexuality, do not betray information, do not murder. (OTP I)
It is impossible to establish if this is a Jewish comment, an addition in the spirit of Pseudo- Phocylides, or a Christian interpolation. The use of the word arsenokoiten, used by Paul in 1 Corinthians, and not attested elsewhere before this, suggests that this reference might be of Christian origin.
G. Sibylline Oracles V This was written in Egypt towards the end of the first Century CE, post-dating Paul, but is included here because it reflects contemporary attitudes.
A charge against Rome is that
With you are found adulteries and illicit intercourse with boys. Effeminate and unjust, evil city, ill-fated above all. (166-7) (OTP I)
Rome is guilty of pederasty. Part of that offence is its ‘effeminate’ element. Adultery and homosexuality are again linked.
Another passage condemns Rome’s sexual transgressions:
Matricides, desist from boldness and evil daring, you who formerly impiously catered for pederasty and set up in houses prostitutes who were pure before, with insults and punishment and toilsome disgrace. For in you mother had intercourse with child unlawfully, 19
and daughter was joined with her begetter as bride. In you also kings defiled their ill-fated mouths. In you also evil men practiced bestiality. (386-393) (OTP I)
Pederasty is here classed with pimping and incest.
In a passage concerning a saviour figure, the author looks forward to a time when
… terrible things no longer happen to wretched mortals, no adulteries or illicit love of boys, no murder, or din of battle, but competition is fair among all. (429-31) (OTP I)
Again, pederasty is paired with adultery.
H. Philo 1. De Specialibus Legibus In a discussion of the exclusion of the unworthy from the holy congregation, Philo writes
…It begins with the men who beli.e. their sex and are afflicted with effemination, who debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women. (1.325)
Philo rejects these men because they do not reflect the appropriate gender roles. Against nature, they take on both the outward appearance and the sexual behaviours of women. Philo attacks pederasty on the same basis:
He [the wicked man] not only attacks in his fury the marriage-beds of others, but even plays the pederast and forces the male type of nature to debase and convert itself into the feminine form, just to indulge a polluted and accursed passion. (2.50)
He attacks the active partner who forces other males into the feminine role, against their nature. Again, adultery and homosexuality are linked.
In an extended passage (3.37-42) Philo condemns pederasty on the basis that it transgresses against the natural order. This type of behaviour is ‘now a matter of boasting not only to the active but to the passive partners, …’ (3.37). The passive partners ‘habituate themselves to endure the disease of effemination’ (3.37), by arranging their hair, and using make-up and perfumes like women. The law ‘ordains that the man-woman who debases the stirling coin of nature should perish unavenged, suffered not to live for a day or even an hour, as a disgrace to himself, his house, his native land and the whole human race.’ (3.38)
Philo also attacks the active partner, in a passage suggesting that he is reacting to the practice of pederasty. As well as pursuing a pleasure which is against nature (para physin) the paiderastes ‘sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in the grievous vices of unmanliness and effeminacy by prolonging the bloom of the young and emasculating the flower of their prime, which should rightly be trained to strength and robustness.’ (3.39)
He then introduces another concept to the argument. The pederast ‘destroys the means of procreation’, by letting ‘fruitful fields li.e. sterile’ and labouring on those fields which cannot produce growth (3.39). In isolation this comment might be seen as an attack on anal intercourse, not primarily a defence of procreation. But the wider context indicates that it derives its whole point 20
from a conception of procreation. In 3:32 Philo forbids intercourse with a menstruating wife. He also condemns men who deliberately marry infertile women (3:34). Both are wrong because the seeds are wasted.
2. De Vita Contemplativa In Vit.Cont. 59-63 Philo discusses the symposium as described by Plato. The talk at these banquets is of love, not merely ‘passions recognised by the laws of nature’ but also that of men for other males (andron arresin) (59), especially pederasty. He first focuses on the eromenos, asserting that pederasty robs men of courage and makes them effeminate, turning them into a hybrid of man and woman (androgynos) ‘those who should have been disciplined in all the practices which make for valour.’ (60). The erastes is affected in soul, body and possessions—the mind of the pederast is set on the eromenos to the exclusion of all else, so that his body wastes through desire and his property diminishes through neglect and expenditure (61). There is a problem here. In the classic Greek pederastic relationship the eromenos was too young (12-18 years) to have property or means. Philo may have been describing a local variation, involving an older eromenos; or, unlikely, he may have been describing something which he had not seen.
As in Spec.Leg. 3.39 Philo asserts that ‘cities are desolated’ because of this thwarting of the procreative act (62).
3. Hypothetica In 7:1-9 Philo details the many ways on which the Jews apply their laws strictly and impartially. At the beginning he describes the Jewish attitude towards pederasty:
If you are guilty of pederasty or adultery or rape of a young person, even of a female, similarly if you prostitute yourself or allow or purpose or intend any action which your age makes indecent the penalty is death. (7.1)
To pederasty (again grouped with adultery) Philo adds the crime of homosexual rape. That Philo adds ‘even of a female’ indicates that the ‘rape of a young person’ involves a male victim.
4. Female homoeroticism in Philo In Spec.Leg. 3.51 Philo advocates that the prostitute be stoned to death because ‘she infects the souls of both men and women with licentiousness.’ This suggests that prostitutes engaged in homoerotic acts with women; if not with clients then probably amongst themselves. Interestingly the prostitute deserves death because she has ‘corrupted the graces bestowed by nature (tes physeos)’—what she has done is para physin.
Philo uses the term gynandros in three texts (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 100, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit 274, De Virtutibus 21). The gynandros is the female corollary of the androgynos, the man who transgresses gender boundaries, usually by acquiring the gender characteristics of a woman.
The context for Virt. 20-21 is a discussion of the command against cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5:
...the true man should maintain his masculinity, particularly in his clothes, which as he always wears them by day and night ought to have nothing to suggest unmanliness. In the same way he trained the woman to decency of adornment and forbade her to assume the dress of a man, with the further object of guarding against the mannish-woman (hos androgynos houtos kai gynandrous phulaxamenos).’
21
That both men and women are explicitly described as performing the same behaviour indicates that the two terms are conceptually different, i.e. they are not synonyms for male activity. In Sacr AC 100 the terms are again distinguished because of the use of the feminine article for gynandros and the masculine article for androgynos:
Men could not contest with women, nor women with men, the functions which fitly belong only to the other sex. If women should affect the practices of men, or men attempt those of women (hai men gynandros... hoi de androgynos) they will in each case be held to beli.e. their sex and win an ill name thereby.
And again in Rer Div Her 274:
It is when the mind which has come down from heaven, though it be fast bound in the constraints of the body, nevertheless is not lured by any of them to embrace like some hybrid, man-woman or woman-man (androgynos e gynandros), the pleasant seeming evils, but holding to its own nature (tes heautou physeos) of true manhood has the strength to be victor instead of victim in the wrestling bout.
These texts imply an explicit distinction of roles on gender lines; there is the possibility that a man or woman may take on the dress or behaviour of the other. Whether this behaviour is sexual or not is not specified. But gender distinctions provide the basis for Philo’s condemnation of male passive sexual activity, and it is quite possible that Philo had the female equivalent in mind in these instances. Philo might be objecting to a woman taking the active, penetrating role in intercourse, a possibility with both male and female partners.
5. Philo’s concept of para physin Were the effeminate and pederastic elements removed from the activities which Philo condemns, and only the sexual behaviour remained, Philo would still object on the basis that it was para physin. What does para physin mean to Philo?
There is no Hebrew equivalent for physin, either the word or the concept. The idea is Greek in origin and attested as far back as the time of Homer. Plato developed an understanding of what is kata/para physin which influenced Philo (and probably other Jewish writers of the first century CE). This influence can be discerned in their similar emphasis on procreation.
In Timaeus 90e-91 Plato asserted that cowardly or immoral men were reborn in the second life as women. Only then did the gods produce sexual love, creating the penis and the womb as the instruments of procreation. Both instruments create the desire to reproduce. Plato speaks only of procreative desires and pleasures, not non-procreative; and while he explains the divine purpose of the penis, he does not discuss female genitalia. Femaleness is thus defined by receptivity; Plato gives a rationale for the cultural norm of active/passive gender roles, and gives it normative value as kata physin.
This explains Plato’s statement in Leg. 636b-c:
…this institution [the gymnasium] is thought to have corrupted the pleasures of love which are natural not to men only but also natural to beasts… one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure (hedone) experienced is held to be due to nature (kata physin), but contrary to nature (para physin) when male mates with male or female with female (arrenon de de pros arrenas e theleion 22
pros theleias), and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Thus the only legitimate sexual pleasure, the only one kata physin, is that involved in procreative acts.
In Leg. 838e Plato (through the character of the Athenian) proposes a law by which the only permissible intercourse would be that which leads to childbearing. In the discussion of this concept the Athenian comments,
Possibly, should God so grant, we might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex- relations—either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural (para physin) and barren seed in sodomy…
Philo echoes Plato’s thoughts on procreation in several places. In Abr. 137 he refers to ‘the unions which men and women naturally make for begetting children’, which reflects a similar phrase in Leg. 838e. Mention has already been made of the theme of procreation in Spec.Leg. 3:37-42. Philo there refers to the active partner as one who works in fields which cannot bear fruit (3.39; cf. 3.361). This reflects Plato’s description in Leg. 839a of those who practice intercourse para physin as ‘sowing seed on rocks and stones’.
I. Josephus 1. Against Apion In a discussion of the Jewish marriage laws (2.190-219) Josephus writes ‘The Law recognizes no sexual connexions, except the natural union of man and wife, and that only for the procreation of children. Sodomy (ten arrenas arrenon) it abhors, and punishes any guilty of such assault with death’ (2.199 [24]). Here Josephus confines sexuality to procreation, like Plato. He records the Torah’s punishment for not only the active, but also the passive partner: death ‘for outrage upon a male, for consent of one so tempted to such abuse’ (2.215[31]).
In 2.273 Josephus defends the Jews’ preference for their laws by criticising the propensity of other nations to repudiate theirs. He gives as an example the swing of the peoples of Elis and Thebes against the ‘unnnatural vice’ (ten para physin... tous arrenas mixeos...) (2.273[38]).
Josephus clearly places these attitudes within the context of the Jewish law; it is from the Torah that he obtains the main idea that homoerotic activity is prohibited. But he has absorbed the extrabiblical concept that it is para physin because it does not lead to procreation.
2. Jewish War In BJ IV 560-63 Josephus describes a band of Galilean zealots operating in Jerusalem, who not only murdered and plundered the rich, but ‘unscrupulously indulged in effeminate practices’, dressing and decorating themselves as women. Josephus emphasises that they also imitated ‘the passions of women’ (pathe psunaikon enimounto), ‘wallowing as in a brothel’ (hos porneios) and polluting the city with their deeds.
The zealots’ activities combine both sexual aggression and violence:
Yet, while they wore women’s faces, their hands were murderous, and approaching with mincing steps they would suddenly become warriors and whipping out their swords from under their dyed mantles transfix whomever they met. (563) 23
Three elements of the zealots’ behaviour are under attack: their violence, their effeminate appearance, and their effeminate sexual excess.
Transvestism (to use a modern term) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:5; Josephus couches the zealots’ behaviour in gender terms, indicating that both their dressing up as women and their homoerotic behaviour is a transgression of sexual/gender roles.
3. Jewish Antiquities In Ant. 15:25-30 Josephus describes how Quintus Dellius brought Antony’s attention to the beauty of Aristobulus, the sixteen-year-old son of Herod and Mariamne. The motive for this is clearly stated. Dellius was ‘trying to entice Antony into (sexual) pleasures’ (pros tas hedonas). Having rejected the boy’s sister for political reasons. Antony requested that the boy be sent to him ‘in an outwardly respectable way’. Herod declined to send Aristobulus because he knew that Antony was ‘ready to use him for erotic purposes’ (tois erotikois).
Cassius Dio 49:39 describes Dellius as having been the paidika of Antony. While Josephus does not refer to a previous relationship between them, he presents a picture of two men who assist each other in the sexual pursuit of a young man. Whether this is a true representation or not, it is Josephus’ attitude which is important, and his tone is clearly abhorrent.
J. Summary Homoerotic activity between adult males, and pederasty. were the major targets of writers in the texts we have. Female homoeroticism, promiscuity, and homosexual rape were also mentioned. Where the biblical injunctions against homoerotic behaviour were simple and non-specific, the Jewish writers applied those injunctions to their hellenistic milieu and responded in relative detail to activities which contravened their beliefs. This can be seen in the strength of the response to pederasty.
Among the justifications for their stance on homoeroticism several writers refer to gender issues. Male effeminacy and passivity are to be rejected; and the female who takes an active role in sex or who tries to cross gender boundaries in other ways is condemned. This reflects the gender classifications implicit in the Leviticus and Sodom texts.
Added to this complex is a significant new factor, the introduction of the Greek concept of kata/para physin. In Philo’s case (and possibly that of Pseudo-Phocylides) this is on the basis of procreative capacity.
These new themes, of transgression against nature on the basis of procreative capacity and gender roles, are present in the majority of texts contemporaneous with Paul. It is interesting that Paul uses these terms almost incidentally. Instead he returns to the concept of idolatry, probably because it was relevant to the focus of his attack: sexual immorality associated with idolatry, rather than pederasty or other homoerotic behaviours.
Romans 1:26-27
Summary: Paul condemns homoerotic behaviour as a specific example of organized idolatry. His attitude to it is probably formed by the active/passive paradigm of sexual relations and the Philonic concept of kata/para physin related to procreation. The galli (and to a lesser extent the cinaedi) form part of the background for Paul's statements. 24
Context—Romans 1:18-32 The reasons for Paul's opposition to homoeroticism are complex and difficult to unravel. We have strong possibilities but no certainties. We don't know beyond any doubt why Paul condemned it. But we can get some understanding of Paul's thinking by looking at the rhetorical and social context.
-rhetorical context: condemnation of idolatry -it is not unlikely that Paul is condemning ritual practices, or at least has those practices in mind—cf. 1 Cor 6. -Paul's argument does not require that all his statements reflect the contemporary reality—he is setting up an enemy for the readers to direct their ire at, a common rhetorical technique. However there seems to have been a contemporary reality that he may well have had in mind: the galli (see below)
-social context: gender roles and expectations -’their women’—(emphasis added) indicates an implied gender role.34
Paul's argument: The letter to the Romans is an outline of Paul's understanding of the gospel directed to the Christians in Rome. After an introduction, Paul discusses the condition of humanity without God (1:18-3:20). The first section of this, 1:18-32, discusses the situation of the Gentiles and leads to a discussion of Jewish attitudes (2:1-3:8).
Paul’s main focus is planes (1:27), the going aside from the way intended by putting another thing in the place of God. His argument is this: God has demonstrated his wrath against those who suppress the truth about him (1:18), a truth which is evident in creation (1:19-20). These people have rejected him by turning to other things (1:21-23); so God has given them over to impurity and bodily dishonour (eis akatharsian tou atimazesthai ta somata auton), because they have substituted false, created gods for the true creator God (1:24-25). The ‘bodily dishonour’ is shown in homoerotic acts (1:26-27). They have also been given over to a debased mind and wrong deeds (1:28-32).
Paul's argument against goes from the specific charge of idolatry to a description of those practices. This description then moves to less Gentile-specific behaviour (28-32); this is to prepare the listener/reader for his bombshell in 2:1, ‘you do the same things!’ The references to homoerotic acts are preceded by an explicit reference to the worship and service of created things (v25), implying a cultic context for them. The argument may be paraphrased thus: ‘Those Gentiles! Aren't they irreligious? They worship the creation instead of the creator! Look, they have homosexual sex in their rituals! And they're dreadful people anyway. Oh, and don't point the finger, because you're just as bad.’
Text: dia touto paradoken autous ho theos eis pathe atimias, hai te gar theleiai auton metellaxan ten physiken chresin eis ten para physin, homoios te kai hoi arsenes aphentes ten physiken chresin tes theleias exekauthesan en te orexei auton eis allelous, arsenes en arsesin ten aschemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian hen edei tes planes auton en heautois apolambanontes.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged the natural function for that against nature. Likewise the males abandoned the natural function
34 Nissinen, op. cit., p. 107. 25
with women and were consumed with desire for each other, males committing indecency with males and receiving in themselves the corresponding reward for their error.
Terminology: metallaxan—‘exchange’—reflecting the exchange of the true God for false Gods—should not be interpreted as a comment on orientation (as Boswell reads it) pathe atimias—‘dishonourable’ passions, not ‘degrading’ (in for example NIV)—probably not homosexual ‘desire’, because the ancients regarded homosexual and heterosexual acts to be motivated by the same kind of desire. It more likely refers to the desire to be penetrated, which was ‘dishonourable’ in ancient eyes. ten physiken chresin, lit. ‘the natural function’ (vv26, 27)—chresin ‘function’ is commonly used to describe sexual intercourse (e.g. Xenophon Symposium 8, 28; Plato, Leg. 8, 841a). The phrase thus means ‘the natural mode of sexual behaviour.’ para physin—‘against nature’—Nissinen sees para physin as reflecting the active/passive gender roles.35 Women became active participants in sex and men became passive participants.
Note also Philo's interpetation of sexual intercourse kata physin as procreative. Paul's understanding of these behaviours may be that be that they are ‘against nature’ because they transgress the accepted male-active/female-passive paradigm, and they are not potentially procreative. antimisthian—a ‘corresponding reward’ for their error. Some of the suggestions concerning the nature of this reward have included sexually-transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS), or effeminacy, recalling Philo's ‘disease of effeminacy’ (Spec. Leg. 3.37). However the reward is most likely to be the behaviour itself. The error is idolatry, the reward is the behaviour. WisSol states that the Lord punished Israel using the objects of their idolatry ‘so that they might learn that one is punished by the very things by which one sins’ (WisSol 11:15-16 cf. 12:23).
(Verse 24—tais epithymias ton kardion auton—‘to the desires of their hearts’, i.e. their wish to worship other gods; (‘sinful’ is a questionable interpolation by the translator.)
The strength of the ritual/idolatry argument increases if a contemporary example of such a group can be found. If such a group existed the readers of Paul's letter could immediately see the point of his argument.
The cinaedi and the galli36 Two subcultures in Rome were known for homoerotic activity. The cinaedi (sing. cinaedus) were a subculture revolving around certain bathhouses, brothels, and private homes, possibly from late C2 BCE. They gave excessive attention to hair, make-up, and clothing, and were known for their effeminate speech, dress and movement. Writers were very critical of them:
35 Ibid., p. 106. 36 For a full discussion of these two groups see Amy Richlin, ”Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love Between Men”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 3/4 (1993), pp. 523-573; and Rabun Taylor, "Two Pathic Subcultures in Ancient Rome," Journal of the History of Sexuality, 7/3 (1997), pp. 319-371.
26
Gellius Attic Nights 1.5, 6.12 (fl C2 CE, describes C2-1 BCE) Cicero De Oratore 2.277 (C1BCE) Seneca Ep.114 (C1CE) Quintillian Institutio Oratoria 5.9.14 (C1 CE) Juvenal Satire 2 (C1-2 CE)
The other subculture was the galli, priests of Cybele (magna mater), descending from Hellenized Anatolian fertility cults. -the active worship of Cybele in Rome dates from 204 BCE, however the galli are not evident until C1 BCE.37 -the last observance of the rites of Cybele and Attis in Rome took place in 394 CE.38 -the galli amputated the penis as well as the testicles. Characterized by effeminacy in manners and dress and pathic sexual behaviour - there is evidence that they were taxed as male prostitutes, but their sexual activity was not part of their cultic duties. -they were ridiculed and detested for their pathic sexual activity:
C1BCE Varro (116-29BCE)—Menippearum fragmenta 119-21, 131-32, 149-50, 364 Lucretius (98-55BCE), De Rerum Natura (On the nature of things), 2.600ff Catullus (c84-54 BCE), Poem 63
C1CE Martial (41-104 CE) 3.81.1-4:
What is a woman's crevasse to you, Baetius, you Gallus?… That tongue ought to be licking men's midriffs. Why was your dick cut off by a sherd of Samos if cunt was so appealing to you, Baetius?
C2CE Suetonius (c69—122 CE) Augustine 68 Apuleius (c.123-170 CE) Metamorphosis 8.26-28 Describes a group of Syrian galli, whose leader Philebus has purchased Lucius the Ass to service them, in the place of their flute-player who usually has that honour. Philebus refers to them as ‘girls’ (puellae). Lucius sees that these ‘girls’ are in fact cinaedorum, with ‘cracked, raw, and effeminate voices’ (26), and who wear make-up and gaudy clothes for their sado-masochistic rituals (27-28)
Lucian of Samosata (c120—c190) Asinus 36 (cf. 35-41) In this earlier version of the same tale as Apuleius, Philebus calls out ‘O korasia’ (‘Oh, girls!’), and Lucius sees that these korasia are an ochlos kinaidon, a ‘mob of faggots’ (36). One day they find a young man who will service them in the ‘habitual manner’; but Lucius betrays them to villagers outside, who laugh and spread word of the priests' indecency (to logo diedokan ton hiereon ten aselgeian) (38)
37 Will Roscoe, "Priests of the Goddess: Gender Transgression in Ancient Religion," History of Religions, 36/2 (1996), p. 201. 38 Ibid., p. 206. 27
De Dea Syria 50-54
51 And on these days Galloi are made. For while the rest are playing flutes and performing their rites, frenzy soon enters into many, and many there are who just came to watch who subsequently perform the act. I shall describe what they do. The young man whom Fortune has given to do this casts off his clothing and rushes into the center with a great shout, and takes up a sword, which has stood there many years for this purpose, I believe. Then he immediately castrates himself and runs through the City bearing in his hands those parts he has cut off. And from whatever house into which he shall cast these, he gets female clothing and womanly adornments. Thus they do when they castrate themselves.
C5CE Augustine City of God 6.7.3.
The Mother of Gods has her rites, in which the beautiful youth Attis, whom she loved and castrated in feminine jealousy, is lamented by those called Galli, who themselves suffer the same misfortune. Such performances are more disgusting than any obscenity on the stage.’ (Trans by Henry Bettenson) (cf. 2.7, 7.24)
One interpretation holds that Romans 1 refers to the ‘Fall’ of humanity in Genesis 3, and that homosexuality is a symptom of the Fall. But Romans 1 describes the invention of idolatry, not the Fall.39
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Summary: The traditional translations of arsenokoites and malakoi as homosexual acts are most likely incorrect. arsenokoitai probably refers to a type of exploitation involving sex, not active homosexual sex. malakoi may refer to a heterosexual sensualist, someone who indulges to excess. The insistence on using homosexual interpretations indicates an agenda other than good scholarship.40
Context: Paul speaks to a situation which has arisen in the Corinthian church. One of their number is having a sexual relationship with his father's wife (stepmother) (5:1). Paul is appalled at this—not even the pagans do this—but he is just as appalled at the Corinthians' attitude. They have been boasting; what they have been saying is unclear, but it is probable that they have been bragging about their character as Christians, while tolerating such sin (5:2, 6). Paul admonishes them not to tolerate immoral people within the gathering of Christians, not just the sexually immoral but the greedy, the abusive, drunkard or the thief. (5:9-11).
Paul is horrified by the fact that Christians are suing each other in the secular courts, rather than sorting out their problems amongst themselves. He asks, why should these people judge Christians? Look at the terrible things they do. But you people are beyond this, through Jesus changing your status before God.
39 Dale B. Martin, “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32”, Biblical Interpretation, 3/3 (1995), p. 334. 40 Arsenokoiten is also used in 1 Timothy 1:10. An examination of the text does not add anything to this discussion. 28
Paul's comments on the sexually immoral etc in 5:9-11 are relevant to 6:9-11. People who claim to be followers of Christ and who do the things in this ‘vice list’ are not to be allowed to stay among them (5:13) or to be associated with (5:11). Paul offers two reasons. One involves the wellbeing of the fellowship: undesirable elements can ruin the church like yeast in a batch of dough (5:6-7). The other is a theological explanation: people who do these things (presumably unrepentantly) do not have the changed life of those who have changed in status before God (6:11). Therefore it is illogical to have them within the fellowship; they do not have the ‘membership qualifications’.
Text: e ouk oidate hoti adikoi theo basileian ou kleronomesousin? Me planasthe: oute pornoi oute eidololatrai oute moichoi oute malachoi oute arsenokoitai oute kleptai oute pleonektai, ou methisoi, ou loidoroi, ouch haroages basileaian theou kleronomesousin. kai tauta tinesete; alla apelousasthe, alla hegiasthete, alla edikaiothete en to onomati tou kyriou Iesou Christou kai en to pneumati tou theo hemon.
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled; neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor malakoi nor arsenokoitai nor thieves nor greedy people nor drunkards nor abusive people nor grasping people will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were; but you have had yourselves washed, you have been consecrated, you have been justified in the name of the lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God.
Terminology: There has been much variety in how the relevant words have been translated:
malakoi arsenokoitai Tyndale 1534 weaklings abusars of them selves with mankinde Geneva 1568 ed wantons buggerers Rheims/Douay 1582/1609 effeminate liers with mankind Mace NT 1729 effeminate brutal Wesley NT 1755 effeminate sodomites KJV 1769 ed effeminate abusers of themselues with mankinde Darby 1884 those who make who abuse themselves with men women of themselves Moffatt NT 1922 catamites sodomites NASB 1963 effeminate homosexuals NIV 1978 male prostitutes homosexual offenders NRSV 1989 male prostitutes sodomites CEV 1995 pervert behaves like a homosexual New Living 1996 male prostitutes homosexuals41
The placement of the words arsenokoitai and malakoi within the list of vices may be significant. They sit between a group of mainly sexual sins and ‘economic’ sins: sexually immoral, idolators, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusive people, grasping people.
But this is merely speculative. The lack of context within the list means that we can’t tell exactly what Paul understood the words to mean. We don’t know if the list was borrowed from another
41 http://members.aol.com/hansss/1-Corinthians-6_9-10.htm (accessed 25 March 2002). 29
source, created as written, or written then rearranged to reflect a particular order. Each of these possibilities could be evidence for a different understanding. arsenokoites The word arsenokoites is a masculine noun derived from arseno- meaning ‘male’, and koita- from keimai ‘lie, be laid’.
Occurrences of arsenokoites in the literature are rare. Sibylline Oracles 2.73 has the infinitive arsenokoitein; while the original material was probably written by 30BCE at the latest, this section is most likely a Christian interpolation and therefore would postdate Paul. (In any case a ‘homosexual’ interpretation in 2.73 is suspect; see below.) The arsenokoit- group of words appears to be a coinage of, if not Paul and Hellenistic Jewish Christianity, then Hellenistic Judaism. The paucity of references means that we have no clear indication of what it actually meant at the time Paul wrote it, especially if he coined it.
1. The active partner? David Wright identifies a probable influence in the LXX of Leviticus: 42
Leviticus 18:22 kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynikaian
Leviticus 20:13 kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
This is significant. If the word was coined on the basis of the LXX, it is possible that the context of those words was carried over with the lexical material. The apparent lack of usage before Paul makes this possibility all the more likely. Paul appears to be referring to Leviticus, with its cultic implications. Turner describes Paul’s use of arsenokoites as ‘a deliberate, conscious back-reference’ to the Holiness Code.43
(Note: Paul’s ‘coinage’ of arsenokoitai depended on his readers understanding the reference back to the LXX – it is more likely that someone else had already coined the word.)
Should arsenokoitai be translated with an active meaning? Such translations are based on the assumption that malakoi equals passive, therefore arsenokoitai equals active. This is erroneous on two grounds. As demonstrated below, malakoi does not necessarily denote homoerotic activity. And as discussed in the section on Leviticus, the expression from which arsenokoites is derived most likely describes the passive partner. It is possible that by Paul’s time the original concept may have reversed to denote that active partner, however there is no evidence available for this, especially in the absence of examples of usage predating Paul. The active translation of arsenokoitai is untenable in the face of the currently-available evidence.
2. Exploitation by means of sex Dale Martin argues that on the basis of usage elsewhere, it is unlikely that arsenokoitai refers to homosexual activity at all. Arsenokoites refers not to male homosexuality but to ‘some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex.’44
42 David F. Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)”, Vigiliae Christianae, 38/2 (1984), pp. 126, 137. 43 P.D.M. Turner, “Biblical Texts Relevant to Homosexual Orientation and Practice: Notes on Philology and Interpretation”, Christian Scholar’s Review, 26/4 (1997), p. 442 n. 28. 44 Dale B. Martin, "Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences," in Robert L. Brawley (ed.), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), p. 120. 30
Sib.Or. 2.70-77 (previously cited) – Oddly arsenokoitein appears in this ‘vice list’ of economic sins, the only sexual reference, if it is sexual. Sexual sins are denounced elsewhere (2.279-82) with no mention of arsenokoites.
C2 CE Acts of John 2.279-82 – economic meaning, with no sexual reference. So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief and all of this band... (section 36; Hennecke Schneelmacher). Denounces sexual sins in section 35, but like Sib.Or. 2 there is no mention of arsenokoites.
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus -a vice list:
Category Sin Sexual adultery pornos Economic thief plunderer defrauder ? arsenokoites Sins of passion savagery abusive behaviour wrath jealousy/envy Pride boastfulness conceit ? plektes ‘striker’ Greed avaricious (family?) disobedient to parents selling one's children45
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heretics, 5.26.22-23 -a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil Naas. Naas deceived Eve and committed adultery with her. Then he went to Adam and ‘possessed him like a boy (slave)’. Note the elements of deception and possibly coercion.46
Bardesanes (C2-3) quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel – appears to equate arsenokites with homosexuality, but is doubtful.47
The usage of arsenokoites in other texts suggests that a homoerotic connotation is inaccurate and unlikely. malakos ‘Tracing the chronology of malakos is much like driving in fog. It involves a great deal of uncertainty and requires extreme caution.’ (Christopher Lee)48
45 Table after Martin, op. cit., pp. 121-2. 46 Martin, ‘Arsenokoites and Malakos’, p. 122. 47 Ibid., p. 123. 48 Christopher T. Lee, Paul's Malakos: Its Evolution from Classical Greece Through the Roman World, 31
Malakoi is the masculine nominative plural of malakos, which is usually defined as ‘soft’. Two of the three NT uses of malakos (Mt 11:8, Luke 7:25) demonstrate the original application of the word to objects or things.
How should it be translated in 1 Corinthians 6:9? Traditionally it is translated as having the sense of ‘passive homosexual’.
1. Male prostitutes? Should it be translated as ‘male prostitutes’? Fee suggests so, on the basis that malakoi is immediately followed by arsenokoitai. Fee appears to mean that the latter word represents the role of the active client, who engages the passive malakos. But as Fee notes, there is an alternative word for prostitutes—pornos—and it is unlikely that Paul would use a colloquial word ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ when there was a more accurate word available. 49
2. ‘Effeminacy’ and sensuality A strong argument against reading the ‘passive homosexual’ sense in Paul's use of malakos can be found in its usage outside the NT. Malakos developed a wide range of meanings – cowardice, physical weakness, moral weakness, effeminate characteristics, sexual deviancy: cowardice Alcaeus 6 Plato Republic 3.387c (C4 BCE) sensuality Plutarch Erotikos 751 (late C1 CE) moral weakness Plato Republic 8.556c (C4 BCE) Xenophon Cyropaedia 2.2.24 (C4 BCE) Plutarch Life of Aristides 4.3 (late C1 CE) Life of Themistocles 6.1 Vettius Valens 115.31 (160 CE) passive homosexuality Aeschines Against Timarchos 131 (346-5 BCE)
The moral and sensual meanings were used well into C2 CE. Thereafter the sexual sense predominated.
The concept emerged of the malakos as a sensualist. The ‘soft’, non-active behaviour was negatively compared to the hard, brutal behaviour expected of men – the man of sensuality and pleasure versus the man of war, business and politics. This was applicable not merely to someone who liked men, but a man who womanised, who undermined his virility by seeking pleasure. ‘…they deviated from the masculine gender norms insofar as they preferred the soft option of love to the hard option of war.’50
Examples:
Aristophanes, Wasps 1455 (late C5 BCE) – an old man rejects his hard lifestyle for a more luxurious one.
https://web.archive.org/web/20021003062016/www.princeton.edu/~clee/paper.html (accessed 2 December 2018). 49 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 243. 50 David M. Halperin, ‘How To Do The History of Male Homosexuality’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 6/1 (2000), p. 93. 32
Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 1.4 (C2 CE) – an adulterer:
His hair was gleaming and heavily scented; his eyes were made up; he had a soft cloak and fine shoes; heavy rings gleamed on his fingers. (tr. B.P. Reardon, in B.P. Reardon (ed.), Collected Ancient Greek Novels [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989])
Pseudo-Lucian, Amores 9 (C2 CE):
… Charicles a young man from Corinth who is not only handsome but shows some evidence of skilful use of cosmetics, because, I imagine, he wishes to attract the women,… (tr. A.M. Harmon, Loeb edition)51
In this sense malakos referred to the whole complex of femininity, not just being penetrated.
… in the ancient world a man could be condemned as being effeminate for, among many other things, eating or drinking too much, enjoying gourmet cooking, wearing nice underwear or shoes, wearing much of anything on his head, having long hair, shaving, caring for his skin, wearing cologne or aftershave, dancing too much, laughing too much, or gesticulating too much. Keeping one’s knees together is effeminate, as well as swaying when walking, or bowing the head. And of course there are the sexual acts and positions: being penetrated (by a man or a woman), enjoying sex with women too much, or masturbating. The list could go on – and that contributed to the usefulness of the word as a weapon. It was a malleable condemnation.52
Rather than condemning homoerotic behaviour, Paul may be describing ‘effeminate’ behaviour simply because it doesn’t fit the accepted gender roles. These are a major consideration for Paul cf. 1 Cor 11:3-16.
Is a clear translation possible? Not with complete accuracy. The history of the word would suggest a meaning somewhere in the region of sensualist/deviant. Perhaps ‘sensually excessive’ would be the clearest way of expressing it.
At the least we can state that there is much evidence to suggest that malakos does not describe passive homoerotic behaviour; in fact, the majority of uses point to it being used of heterosexual subjects.
Why homosexuality? Martin’s comment on interpretations of arsenokoitai raises a serious point:
I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant. I freely admit that it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex. But given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoites appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that ‘of course’ the term refers to ‘men who have sex with other men.’ It is certainly possible, I think probable, that arsenokoites referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex. The more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-
51 http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/lucian-amores.htm. 52 Martin, ‘Arsenokoites and Malakos’, p. 128. 33
male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.53
Paul’s main point in this passage is that he expects that Christians will not sue each other, or anyone else (vv 6-8). Modern Christians ignore this yet uphold the perceived prohibition of homosexuality two verses later, a prohibition mentioned in passing. This convenient selection is hypocritical. As is the poor scholarship driving the translations of these words: ‘… we discover that interpretations of arsenokoites and malakos as condemning modern homosexuality have been driven more by ideological interests in marginalizing gay and lesbian people than by the general strictures of historical criticism.’54
Conclusion
Summary: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe male to male anal intercourse and condemn it as abhorrent to Yahweh and therefore not to be practiced. It was rejected by the Hebrews simply because it was rejected by Yahweh.
Commentators cite Deuteronomy 23:17,18 as evidence for ‘male cultic prostitution’. While it is unlikely that the qadeshim/qadeshot functioned in that way, it is certain that the Hebrew mind understood it to be so. This might provide background for the prohibition in Leviticus.
Two similar stories, that of Lot (Genesis 19:1-11) and the unnamed Levite and his concubine (Judges 19) describe threatened same-sex rape. It is commonly accepted that these passages do not concern homosexuality but are about the abuse of hospitality through sexual violence. This theme is present in most of the references to Sodom in the Second Temple writings.
Second Temple texts condemn homoerotic behaviour on two grounds: the transgression of gender roles, and the lack of procreative potential. It is important to keep these factors in mind when examining the New Testament references.
In Romans 1 Paul condemns homoerotic behaviour as a specific example of organised idolatry. His attitude to it is probably formed by the active/passive paradigm of sexual relations and the Philonic concept of kata/para physin related to procreation. The galli (and to a lesser extent the cinaedi) form part of the background for Paul’s statements.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the traditional translations of arsenokoites and malakoi as homosexual acts are most likely incorrect. Arsenokoitai probably refers to a type of exploitation using sex, not active homosexual sex. Malakos may refer to a heterosexual sensualist, someone who indulges to excess.
The overall thrust of these passages has been to condemn homoerotic activity in the context of idolatry, that is, when it is part of the worship of something other than God. There is sufficient background in the surrounding cultures for us to see where these ideas have come from.
While one cannot make an argument from silence and claim that the Bible supports homosexuality, neither can one say that the Bible condemns it. In fact it can be clearly stated that the Bible does not condemn it.
53 Ibid., p. 123. 54 Ibid., p. 117. 34
Which raises a question: If there is strong evidence that the Church’s traditional condemnation of homosexuality is wrong, then why does it choose not to revise its opinion? That many in the church do not revise that understanding indicates that they are not committed to the truth, but to an un- Christian bias against homosexual people.
Bias and selectivity The call for the church to correct its view on homosexuality is not a call to ‘rewrite Scripture’. The church has historically made decisions about what Scripture does or does not apply to Christians today – for example, dietary laws, teachings on divorce and remarriage. ‘The fact is that we do not simply quote texts. We make decisions on theological and pragmatic grounds about what is applicable and what is not.’55
This is not a bad thing. We have biblical precedent for it. It occurred in New Testament times, for example in the discussion of clean and unclean foods (1 Cor 8). Even in the Old Testament we have the example of 1 Sam 21:1-6. The holy bread could be eaten only by consecrated priests (Lev 24:9), but David redefined the terms of what is holy, arguing that his men could eat it.
This case is cited by Jesus when he and his disciples are attacked for picking grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8, Mk 2:23-27, Lk 6:1-5). His declaration in Mark 2:27 that ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ releases and empowers us to re-evaluate traditional teachings and their applicability. We are not tied to restrictive statements and interpretations but are in fact permitted to re-interpret scripture for the good of humanity. We are free to make choices about what is or is not relevant.
Unfortunately this freedom to be selective has been exercised with bias and self-interest as the motivating factors.
The very same books which are thought to condemn homosexual acts condemn hypocrisy in the most strident terms, and on greater authority: and yet Western society did not create any social taboos against hypocrisy, did not claim that hypocrites were ‘unnatural’, did not segregate them into an oppressed minority, did not enact laws punishing their sin with castration or death. No Christian state, in fact, has passed laws against hypocrisy per se, despite its continual and explicit condemnation by Jesus and the church. In the very same list which has been claimed to exclude from the kingdom of heaven those guilty of homosexual practices, the greedy are also excluded (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). And yet no medieval states burned the greedy at the stake. Some factors beyond biblical precedent were at work in late medieval states which licensed prostitutes but burned gay people: by any objective standard, there is far more condemnation of prostitution in the New Testament than of homosexuality.56
All interpreters must be aware that they come to the Scriptures with ideas and understandings of their own time and conditions, ideas and understandings which are not necessarily true or correct, and that these can influence our reading of Scripture if we choose to. If we are honest we will try to minimise that influence. If we do not admit it, we are putting our own biases in the way of the truth.
55 Choon-Leong Seow, "Textual Orientation," in Robert L. Brawley (ed.), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), p. 19. 56 Boswell, op. cit., p.7. 35
Widening the focus Most of the arguments and evidence here are directed at the fundamentalist part of the church, the one that believes that all answers can be found in the Bible. But there is good reason to believe that what the Bible says about homosexuality, whether pro or con, is irrelevant to today.
Our concepts of homosexuality and of different homosexualities today are vastly different to those in Paul’s world. Greek and Roman homosexualities were based on class distinctions and gender roles.
The image of homosexuality in the Bible and other ancient sources essentially differs from modern images in that no distinction is made in the ancient sources between gender roles (man/woman), sexual orientation (homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual) and sexual practice. In these sources, erotic interaction on the part of people of the same sex is not considered a question of individual identity but a question of social roles and behaviour. Identity, like sexuality, is a concept that developed only in modern times.
Nissinen argues that the issue of personal sexuality must be seen as part of a larger whole.57 Is it realistic (or fair) to treat a person on the basis of their sexuality alone? Other aspects of a person’s behaviour, personality, character and history influence what scriptures one uses to form a biblically- based attitude to the person. To focus on one characteristic is unrealistic and devalues the individual.
This is the approach to sexual ethics that many conservative commentators take. There is more to sexuality than behaviour. The Bible also speaks of love, responsibility, violence, excess, fidelity, and oppression. Any sexual ethic that does not examine these factors is incomplete and unethical.
There is a clear challenge to much of the church:
It may well be that unless we totally oppose homosexuality, we have to diverge from the ‘clear word’ of the Bible. But this is true also when one professes that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Changes in worldview have forced people to adjust even to things and views that appear contrary to the Bible, because all biblical interpretation happens in concrete circumstances.58
The challenge is that the church needs to humbly admit that it has been wrong and seek to correct itself, to seek forgiveness and reconciliation, to right wrongs and to make restitution.
57 Nissinen, op. cit., p. 126. 58 Ibid. 36
Bibliography
Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W., Danker, F.W., A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. 1979). [BAGD]
Bigger, Stephen F., ‘The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 98/2 (1979), pp. 187-203.
Bird, Phyllis A., ‘The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qades-Qadesim,’ in Emerton, J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume—Cambridge 1995 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 37-80. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Vol LXVI)
Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Boyarin, Daniel, ‘Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/3 (1995), pp. 333-355.
Charlesworth, James E. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (New York: Doubleday, [Vol. I Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 1983; Vol. II Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, 1985]). [OTP]
Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) (NICNT).
Greenberg, David F., The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
Halperin, David M., ‘How To Do The History of Male Homosexuality’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 6/1 (2000), pp. 87-124.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, tr. Geoffrey Bromiley, 9 vols, 1964-1974).
Lee, Christopher T., Paul's Malakos: Its Evolution from Classical Greece Through the Roman World, https://web.archive.org/web/20021003062016/www.princeton.edu/~clee/paper.html, accessed 2/12/2018.
Martin, Dale B., “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32”, Biblical Interpretation, 3/3 (1995), pp. 332-355.
Martin, Dale B., ‘Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences,’ in Robert L. Brawley (ed.), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), pp. 117- 36.
Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).
Olyan, Saul M., ‘‘And With A Male You Shall Not Li.e. the Lying Down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/2 (1994), pp. 179- 206.
37
Richlin, Amy, ‘Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love Between Men’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 3/4 (1993), pp. 523-573.
Roscoe, Will, ‘Priests of the Goddess: Gender Transgression in Ancient Religion,’ History of Religions, 36/2 (1996), pp. 195-230.
Seow, Choon-Leong, ‘Textual Orientation,’ in Robert L. Brawley (ed.), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), pp. 17-34.
Taylor, Rabun, ‘Two Pathic Subcultures in Ancient Rome,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 7/3 (1997), pp. 319-371.
Turner, P.D.M., ‘Biblical Texts Relevant to Homosexual Orientation and Practice: Notes on Philology and Interpretation’, Christian Scholar’s Review, 26/4 (1997), pp. 435-445.
Van der Toorn, Karel, ‘Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 108/2 (1989), pp. 193-205.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick, ‘Tamar, qedesa, qadistu, and sacred prostitution in Mesopotamia’, Harvard Theological Review, 82:3 (1989), pp. 245-65.
Wold, Donald J., Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998).
Wright, David F., ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)’, Vigiliae Christianae, 38/2 (1984), pp. 125-153.