Pah
Uber all member
From John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality - Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
pp. 106-114
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=10
Footnotes omitted, Greek text transliterated. Any transcription errors,
mine. This is part of a larger chapter on the Scriptures in the book.
*************
Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his
life, never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to
oppose homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was
purely on the basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.
There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been
supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in I Corinthians
6:9 and one in I Timothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the
early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded
from the kingdom of heaven.
The first of the two, "malakos" (basically, "soft"), is an extremely
common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the
meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with senses as varied as
"liquid", "cowardly", "refined", "weak willed", "delicate", "gentle",
and "debauched". In a specifically moral context it very frequently
means "licentious", "loose", or "wanting in self-control". At a broad
level, it might be translated as either "unrestrained" or "wanton", but
to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay
people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to
designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts
generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the
Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.
What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church
through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the
twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation.
This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the
early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to
the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the
twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in
popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as
the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the
condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely
despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or
theologians.
The second word, "arsenokoitai", is quite rare, and its application to
homosexuality in particular is more understandable. The best evidence,
however, suggests very strongly that it did not connote homosexuality
to Paul or his contemporaries but meant "male prostitute" until well
into the fourth century, after which it became confused with a variety
of words for disapproved sexual activity and was often equated with
homosexuality.
The remaining passage, Romans 1:26-27, does not suffer from mistrans-
lation, although little attention has been paid to the ramifications of
its wording: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet" (KJV).
It is sometimes argued that the significance of the passage lies in its
connection with idolatry: i.e., that Paul censures the sexual behavior
of the Romans because he associates such behavior with orgiastic pagan
rites in honor of false gods. This might seem to be suggested by the
Old Testament condemnations of temple prostitution. Paul may have been
familiar with temple prostitution, both homosexual and heterosexual,
and it is reasonable to conjecture that he is here warning the Romans
against the immorality of the kadeshim. The fact that the overall
structure of the chapter juxtaposes the sexual activities in question
with the superstitious beliefs of the Romans adds further credence to
this theory, as do possible Old Testament echoes.
Under closer examination, however, this argument proves to be inade-
quate. First of all, there is no reason to believe that homosexual
temple prostitution was more prevalent than heterosexual or that Paul,
had he been addressing himself to such practices, would have limited
his comments to the former. Second, it is clear that the sexual
behavior itself is objectionable to Paul, not merely its associations.
Third, and possibly most important, Paul is not describing cold-blooded,
dispassionate acts performed in the interest of ritual or ceremony: he
states very clearly that the parties involved "burned in their lust one
toward another" ([greek text omitted]). It is unreasonable to infer
from the passage that there was any motive for the behavior other than
sexual desire.
On the other hand, it should be recognized that the point of the
passage is not to stigmatize sexual behavior of any sort but to condemn
the Gentiles for their general infidelity. There was a time, Paul
implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but
they rejected it (vv. 19-23). The reference to homosexuality is simply
a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux
of this argument. Once the point has been made, the subject of
homosexuality is quickly dropped and the major argument resumed
(vv. 28ff.).
What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly
not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by
apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans I in fact,
is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off
the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the
thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally"
inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally"
inclined to monotheism. What caused the Romans to sin was not that
they _lacked_ what Paul considered proper inclinations but that they
_had_ them: they held the truth, but "in unrighteousness" (v. 18),
because "they did not see fit to retain Him in their knowledge" (v. 28).
This aspect of the verses, overlooked by modern scholarship, did not
escape the attention of early Christian writers. Noting that Paul
carefully characterized the persons in question as having _abandoned_
the "natural use", Saint John Chrysostom commented that Paul thus:
deprives them of any excuse, . . . observing of their women that they
"did change the natural use". No one can claim, he points out, that
she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or
that because she was unable to satisfy her desire she fell into this
monstrous depravity. Only those possessing something can change it ....
Again, he points out the same thing about the men, in a different way,
saying they "left the natural use of the woman". Likewise he casts aside
with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had
[legitimate] enjoyment and abandoned it, going after a different one,
but that spurning the natural they pursued the unnatural.
pp. 106-114
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=10
Footnotes omitted, Greek text transliterated. Any transcription errors,
mine. This is part of a larger chapter on the Scriptures in the book.
*************
Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his
life, never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to
oppose homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was
purely on the basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.
There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been
supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in I Corinthians
6:9 and one in I Timothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the
early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded
from the kingdom of heaven.
The first of the two, "malakos" (basically, "soft"), is an extremely
common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the
meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with senses as varied as
"liquid", "cowardly", "refined", "weak willed", "delicate", "gentle",
and "debauched". In a specifically moral context it very frequently
means "licentious", "loose", or "wanting in self-control". At a broad
level, it might be translated as either "unrestrained" or "wanton", but
to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay
people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to
designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts
generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the
Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.
What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church
through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the
twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation.
This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the
early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to
the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the
twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in
popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as
the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the
condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely
despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or
theologians.
The second word, "arsenokoitai", is quite rare, and its application to
homosexuality in particular is more understandable. The best evidence,
however, suggests very strongly that it did not connote homosexuality
to Paul or his contemporaries but meant "male prostitute" until well
into the fourth century, after which it became confused with a variety
of words for disapproved sexual activity and was often equated with
homosexuality.
The remaining passage, Romans 1:26-27, does not suffer from mistrans-
lation, although little attention has been paid to the ramifications of
its wording: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet" (KJV).
It is sometimes argued that the significance of the passage lies in its
connection with idolatry: i.e., that Paul censures the sexual behavior
of the Romans because he associates such behavior with orgiastic pagan
rites in honor of false gods. This might seem to be suggested by the
Old Testament condemnations of temple prostitution. Paul may have been
familiar with temple prostitution, both homosexual and heterosexual,
and it is reasonable to conjecture that he is here warning the Romans
against the immorality of the kadeshim. The fact that the overall
structure of the chapter juxtaposes the sexual activities in question
with the superstitious beliefs of the Romans adds further credence to
this theory, as do possible Old Testament echoes.
Under closer examination, however, this argument proves to be inade-
quate. First of all, there is no reason to believe that homosexual
temple prostitution was more prevalent than heterosexual or that Paul,
had he been addressing himself to such practices, would have limited
his comments to the former. Second, it is clear that the sexual
behavior itself is objectionable to Paul, not merely its associations.
Third, and possibly most important, Paul is not describing cold-blooded,
dispassionate acts performed in the interest of ritual or ceremony: he
states very clearly that the parties involved "burned in their lust one
toward another" ([greek text omitted]). It is unreasonable to infer
from the passage that there was any motive for the behavior other than
sexual desire.
On the other hand, it should be recognized that the point of the
passage is not to stigmatize sexual behavior of any sort but to condemn
the Gentiles for their general infidelity. There was a time, Paul
implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but
they rejected it (vv. 19-23). The reference to homosexuality is simply
a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux
of this argument. Once the point has been made, the subject of
homosexuality is quickly dropped and the major argument resumed
(vv. 28ff.).
What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly
not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by
apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans I in fact,
is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off
the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the
thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally"
inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally"
inclined to monotheism. What caused the Romans to sin was not that
they _lacked_ what Paul considered proper inclinations but that they
_had_ them: they held the truth, but "in unrighteousness" (v. 18),
because "they did not see fit to retain Him in their knowledge" (v. 28).
This aspect of the verses, overlooked by modern scholarship, did not
escape the attention of early Christian writers. Noting that Paul
carefully characterized the persons in question as having _abandoned_
the "natural use", Saint John Chrysostom commented that Paul thus:
deprives them of any excuse, . . . observing of their women that they
"did change the natural use". No one can claim, he points out, that
she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or
that because she was unable to satisfy her desire she fell into this
monstrous depravity. Only those possessing something can change it ....
Again, he points out the same thing about the men, in a different way,
saying they "left the natural use of the woman". Likewise he casts aside
with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had
[legitimate] enjoyment and abandoned it, going after a different one,
but that spurning the natural they pursued the unnatural.