It is commonly argued that the Bible condemns sexual “perversion” such as gay or lesbian sex. In earlier posts I discussed the relevant passages of the Old Testament, to show that they simply cannot be used in these modern debates, since their very understandings of the phenomena are completely at odds with what people think today (including, most emphatically, the people who appeal to those passages in support of their views). See, for example: https://ehrmanblog.org/are-same-sex-relations-condemned-in-the-old-testament/?highlight=homosexual
I should stress there are lots of other activities that are condemned in the Bible all over the map, and these are never a particular emphasis of modern ethical discussion, whether in Christian circles or in society at large. You may be able to deprive gays and lesbians of their civil rights or deny them the ability to serve in the church, based on a couple of passages (almost always misinterpreted) scattered here and there throughout the very large Bible; but what about doing the same for people who are greedy, who get angry, who disobey their parents, who eat or drink too much, who have had sex with someone they weren’t married to, or who are rich? Do you want to condemn all of them to hell as well? Throw them in jail? Keep them out of public view? Not let them talk to your children? Deprive them of their rights? But these are problems condemned forcefully and repeatedly in the Bible, over and over again.
When I worked in churches back in my 20s, I knew all sorts of people who were fabulously rich, and completely self-indulgent, and willing to lie at the drop of a hat, who didn’t care a fig for the impoverished souls living within a mile of them, who were regularly asked to serve as leaders of their church boards, and who, in that role, condemned “homosexuals” as going straight to eternal torment. What’s wrong with this picture?
Most people with that view appeal not only to the Old Testament passages I’ve discussed, but especially passages in the New Testament. But again, there’s actually not much to go on here. In a later post I’ll be arguing that the New Testament has no conception at all of sexual orientation, any more than it had a conception of quantum physics. Human knowledge has advanced a lot since the first century.
It’s true, the authors did know that sometimes men had sex with men and women with women. But they had no conception at all that it had anything to do with something we today would call “orientation” that could explain sexual desire. They saw something they weren’t used to and (in at least one passage) (in fact, in only one passage) condemned it as unnatural. The same way they condemned women with short hair as unnatural. Literally, the same way. Both were unnatural. Should we deprive women with short hair their civil rights or keep them off church boards and the PTA?
I’ll get to that later, when I get around to talking about Romans 1.
The easiest passages for people opposed to “homosexuality” or “homosexuals” to appeal to are the passages that, in some English translations, actually use the term. In the entire New Testament, there are two: 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The seemingly clearest instance is the former. Here it is in the New American Standard Bible translation:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
The 1 Timothy passages uses the same term, to say that the law opposes it, just as it does people who lie and don’t keep their oaths.
There are two very big problems with using these passages to make wide-sweeping claims about same-sex relations either in the church or in society at large, on the grounds that God condemns it and will send those who engage in it to hell. The first is obvious and the second is almost entirely unknown to the reading public at large.
The obvious problem is that …
This is an unusually important and timely topic. If you want to see what I have to say about it, all you need to do is join the blog. If you do, you’ll get five substantial posts a week, on all sorts of interesting topics. It doesn’t cost much at all, and every penny of your membership fee goes to charity!
Appreciate this topic. It’s timely, in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, particularly about same-sex marriage.
Your so awesome…!! We should all take a stab at its meaning…. It’s obvious that “Man-Marriage-Bed” means “Dumb Decisions”….. So, you can’t enter the Kingdom if you keep making “Dumb Decisions”… You’re welcome…!!
What about Romans 1:26-27?
“Unnatural function” can mean a lot of course, but 1:27 seems to speak specifically about homosexual desires.
Yes, I’m gettin’ there! (And yes, it almost certainly does mean men having sex with men)
Always a problem when you try explain something in small chunks.
https://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html
Another article which comes to exactly the same conclusion as yourself and gives some similar words that Paul could have used if his intention was to single out only male homosexuality.
Interesting.
Hello Bart,
Did you meanwhile have a chance to get to this update on Romans 1, 26ff? Or was I just not stubborn enough with the search function 🙂 ?
Ha! I don’t remember! I can’t remember if I ran out of steam on that little journey or not….Did you search for “homosexual”?
isabledupes{f47a5bd535e74c235be6fed34b8b4580}disabledupes
Possibly the steam expanded by organizing a guest post by Jeff Siker:
https://ehrmanblog.org/homosexuality-and-the-new-testament-guest-post-by-jeff-siker/
Which is all I found regarding Romans 1, 26ff using the search function.
Here is why I’m asking: I’m amazed how umm anal people are about 1, 26 while the key point of Romans is about “faith”, “holy spirit” and then you’ll automatically “metanoia” Do The Right Thing (TM), embedded in a discourse on how neither greed (of the gentiles) nor piety (of the Jews) is cutting it (faith in Jesus).
Which leads to a simple litmus test: if two humans with “faith in Jesus” happen to be a gay couple, ka-zam, we can move on to more important topics, like the ones you support with the blog (homelessness, poverty, etc)
So “faith in Jesus” is the key to unlock Romans — anything Christian, actually.
Most interestingly we rarely discuss what it actually meant to Paul or his contemporaries to “have faith in Jesus”, faith being https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm
What did the authors of the gospel / letters teach about having faith? and what did his disciples *do*, historically, to get to “faith”?
Anyhow, thanks for the blog, the podcasts, the books and the online videos you generously make accessible!
PS: to clarify, I’m gay, my wife and I raise a lovely boy, we are as family part of and affiliated with a Catholic parish, in Germany.
Romans only after many tears revealed to me it’s greater context of speaking about greed in Romans 1:26ff, and not about tender, affectionate bonding relationships, and I have no beef whatsoever anymore with it. Claiming “ThAtS YoU GaY PeOpLe” would totally and utterly miss the point.
My personal faith-lost-now-seek journey went from some severe theodizee, personal traumatizing injustice and humiliation via various experiments in meditation / contemplative silent prayer and a very personal understanding of the cross and Job to a peace of mind which sees Christ as the very clear abdication of anything almighty, glorious victorious king, instead a humble communion open to all of us who we all, well, suffer. Helpers along the way included Richard Rohr, Sylvia Boorstein, Franz Jalics and last not least Kenneth S. Leong (“The Zen Teachings of Jesus” revised 2001) a little gem of a book that connects the biblical language to buddhist concepts.
Is god almighty? are miracles real? interesting but maybe missing the point: how to be with Christ?
agnostic-atheist greetings 🙂
Dr. Ehrman:
Then how do you interpret Leviticus 18:22? I think it is quite clear, even in the Hebrew,
Sorry, you’ll need to quote the verse and explain your interpretation so I can address it — otherwise other blog members won’t know what you’re talking about and what I’m adressing!
The word in the Greek New Testament, I think, causes all of the confusion. The word “arsenokoitai” (ἀρσενοκοίτης) is interpreted to mean a type of pedophilia; however, in the Hebrew Bible, this word would represent sexually immoral behavior/pedophilia; that said, I cannot deduce that the ancient Hebrew writers of the Bible would favor sexual acts between men. It just seems to not be a part of God’s plans for humanity. Are we to assume that every English translation of the Bible is wrong in its demonstration of this verse? “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, NRSV) If the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible condemn acts of Pedophilia, I am not convinced that Homosexuality would be at the top of God’s plan, irrespective of good Christians/Jews who practice such acts.
The word doesn’t occur in the Old Testament. And I definitely do not think it is referring to pedophilia in the New Testament.
It does. You cannot honest believe that either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament would opine that homosexuality is of God’s doing? How can that be? Explain: I just want to see a verse, since your essay is so centered on the New Testament, that Jesus would “accept” such behavior…since you point out that it is not condemned? Where is the support for this type of practice? (In the New testament?) By the way, you did not include in your essay the verse of Romans 1:26-27. However, that is Paul speaking. So, again, it’s difficult to conclude that what you’re suggesting in this composition is what EARLY CHRISTIANITY would NOT have a problem with; I find that quite a challenge.
Once again Dr. Ehrman ~ an amazing post!! Again! Thank you so much for the post! As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to accept that the mass majority of people aren’t going to change their views on such matters – especially in this current political climate. That of course is my personal opinion and feeling and I’m not trying to speak for anyone, but I’d like to say that in my opinion because most people have the opposing views, it doesn’t mean that one cannot try to reveal the truth to people – it’s just a tough task. Coming from an early Southern Baptist upbringing, a Catholic school education, and some family being AME .. I know all too well the problems with their views on this subject, the thinking process behind their views, and the consequences most of us have dealt with when trying to broach this subject with loved ones who are entrenched in that opposite way of thinking. BUT! Thanks to your series of posts on this subject, it gives me something personally to refer back to when I get lost in certain thoughts, and it gives me hope that one day people will understand the truths that you are trying to reveal to people on this blog. Thanks again!
What about early NT translations, e.g. to Latin—how do they translate the word?
The Latin is: masculorum concubitores, which means something like “bed-fellows of men.” I.e., it takes “man — marriage bed” and reverses it to “marriage bed — with men,” more clearly, I think, meaning, “men who have sex with men.”
Did the Gnostics have more negative views of sex than early orthodox Christians?
Some Gnostics were highly ascetic and some almost certainly not; same with early orthodox Christians. The *opponents* of Gnostics claimed they were wild sex-fiends whose rituals involved scandalous orgies. But there is good evidence that all that is just rhetoric.
Sadly, the entire notion of sex has been linked to sin almost from day one thanks to Adam, Eve and the serpent. Paul did no favors to the status of women or marriage for that matter by downplaying their role in the new religion. Sex became synonymous with Original Sin and the religious moralists were off to the races. For hundreds of years the Church of Rome proscribed sex not intended for procreation while throughout Christendom men agreed with a wink and a nod. This (de)volved into a theology of “it’s not what you do that matters, it’s what you believe,” justification and sanctification will cover all your sins. No doubt this will change to “it’s not what you believe, it’s how you act” (follow Christ’s red letter instructions in the Bible and you will be saved). Eons later and we still haven’t learned much from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Off topic question: I posted this question under another post but I think I made the question too long and difficult to answer: Isn’t it possible that all the stories we have about Jesus (except those few mentioned by Paul) in both “Q”, the canonical and the non-canonical gospels were the literary/theological inventions of their authors, many of them using “Mark” as a starting point for their own stories? An historical Jesus existed but we know little if anything that he said or did because all the stories in our Bible are fiction?
The reason for not thinking so is that so many of the same stories are shared by authors who did not know each other’s work, so that no one of them could have made them up.
Are there any stories that Luke and Matthew share that are not found in Mark, “Q”, or the writings of Paul?
No, by definition if a story is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, it is understood to have come from “Q”
Exactly. So isn’t it entirely possible that the Jesus Story originated with Paul, was embellished by “Mark”, further embellished by “Q”, then further embellished by “Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, and embellished even later by the authors of all the non-canonical Gospels?
That brings us back to Paul. Paul says in First Corinthians 15 that he “received” the Early Creed, but he doesn’t say from whom! Isn’t it possible that Paul received this information through “revelation from Jesus the Christ” himself?
Are you talking about the NT authors, like John being independent of Matthew/Mark/Luke, or extra canonical authors?
Yes, but not only them. Matthew did not know Luke; Luke did not know Matthew; Mark did not know either, John did not know any of them. Mark did not know Q. Either did John. L and M did not know each other or Q or Mark. Paul didn’t know any of the above. Either did Josephus. Or, arguably the author of Thomas. Etc. etc….
According to Raymond Brown, at least 50% of modern scholars now believe that the Gospel of John is NOT an independent source; that the author had access to or at least knowledge of the Synoptics. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Jesus Story started with Paul (in a mentally unstable mind). Decades later, the author of Mark, a Pauline Christian of a later generation who had never met Paul, made a good story (for evangelism purposes) about Paul’s Jesus. “Q” invented sayings about Paul’s Jesus (and maybe had access to the Gospel of Mark). And you know the rest…
Is there any evidence that contradicts this possible explanation for the rise of Christianity?
Gary I think the problem with your theory, is there are theological differences between the gospels, and particularly Mark and Paul. I would argue specifically the divinity of Jesus.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know when is the earliest example of any relevant writer (for example, one the church fathers) unambiguously and explicitly condemning what we would today recognize as homosexual activity?
I think Paul may in Romans 1, as I’ll explain when I get there. I’ll also be arguing that he uses the same mode of argumentation to show why women have to wear veils in church.
>[…] (no one, by the way, thinks that either passage has a word to say about lesbian sex)
BTW, should anyone be interested in further pursuing this topic in a scholarly fashion might I recommend “Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism” by (my old teacher) Bernadette Brooten.
Yup, a classic!
Bart, Brooten’s contributions to the history of sexuality, specifically, have been quite definitively refuted by scholars in that field. The most definitive refutation came from Sandra Boehringer, _L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine_ (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007). But, almost immediately, none other than the dean of same-sex sex in Antiquity, David Halperin, gave her quite the brutal thrashing. The general consensus of the field is quite solidly against Brooten. I could provide fuller bibliography on this Brooten-Halperin skirmish, but be advised it’s not for the faint of heart. Brooten resorts to some shocking anti-gay male name calling of a historically pernicious sort.
Perhaps you will touch on this in an upcoming post. I can accept that ancient people might not have had the concept of sexual orientation and therefore didn’t talk about homosexuality, at least the way modern people do. But I would presume homosexual people existed in the ancient world. Did ancient people not have a comparable concept, even if conceived differently, and write about it? Or are there writings in which people are talking about what we would call homosexuality even if they didn’t call it that? To make an analogy, it is sometimes possible to tell that ancient people were observing a supernova or documenting what we now recognize as a medical illness.
Yeha, it’s a bit hard to explain. People did know that it rained and thundered, but they didn’t understand the principles behind either. They also knew that men had sex with men and women with women. But they didn’t understand why. Since they had no concept of orientation or sexuality, they simply thoguht that sex acts were things people chose to do, and if they did them in ways that most people didn’t do, they were unnatural. And since they were unnatural, and based entirely on *decision* rather than, say, on orientation, then they were condemned as “sins.” Once “orientation” is brought into the picture, then “choice” becomes more complicated. No one chooses to be white or black, short or tall, beautiful or ugly: they’re born that way. If that’s the case, we’d be crazy to blame them for it or say they should change or that they have have something to be repent of.
Do you think the typical Christian who condemns homosexuality, on the basis of the Bible, sees choice as complicated? Part of the complication that you mention is that when we consider orientations and tendencies, it is debatable whether they justify behavior or not. A person can be born with a high sex drive or be prone to anger. Regardless to what degree these traits might be biologically influenced, we still expect people to not rape, assault or batter others. If homosexuality was wrong, by divine mandate, I’d be inclined to say having tendencies is not wrong as long as you keep them in check. I suppose that might be the view that proponents of conversion therapy think (an awful thing in my opinion, even if well intended). But I’m not sure the typical condemner puts much thought into the matter.
I think you’re right. It’s changing, though, as people realize that we are born with different sexualities. No one *chooses* to be heterosexual, e.g. — that is, there was no point in my life when I decided that I was going to be attracted to women but not to men. Not a choice I could make.
[Continued from previous post]
See, also, the OCD article on “homosexuality, female” (online ed.). However, certain strands of philosophy and certain religious traditions could look askance at certain sexual behaviors, but merely as certain behaviors potentially available and desirable to everyone. The ancient sexual landscape (pick a continent, actually) was simply a different world from ours today. For the compatibility of scholarly constructions of ancient sexuality with modern scientific leanings, see, e.g., Anne Fausto-Sterling, _ Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World_, Routledge Series Integrating Science and Culture (New York: Routledge Press, 2012).
In our context here, we must be careful to distinguish between religious discourse, generally cultural sexual discourse, and actual sexual practice. Doing so is much easier with regard to ancient Muslim texts and cultures, as we possess a wider variety of texts for those. Constructing an ancient Muslim sexuality largely according with constructions of ancient sexuality generally is fairly straightforward. The task is more difficult with ancient Israel and ancient Jews, as the sources are less diverse until the High Middle Ages or so, generally representing a very few religious strands of discourse.
Bart, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears you’re not entirely clear on what the consensus of scholars of the history of sexuality actually is. You seem to believe that, while there was no concept of sexual orientation comparable to ours in the ancient world, sexual actors were nevertheless divvied up much as they are today, including in the current proportions, merely without the corresponding names and concepts. In other words, the group of males attracted to males, for example, was a minority in ancient times. If this is your impression, you would be mistaken. The scholarly consensus is that there was in practice no phenomenon of sexual orientation in ancient times, regardless of terms and concepts. That is, the typical ancient man was attracted to boys, girls, and women. The typical ancient woman was attracted to males and females. This is the thrust of the OCD article on “homosexuality” (4th ed. and online ed.), as it is of scholars like David Halperin, John Winkler, Craig Williams, Nick Fisher, Andrew Lear, Kirk Ormand, Sandra Boehringer, Marilyn Skinner, Michel Foucault, and many others (pertinent bibliographic details can be found in the OCD article).
[Continued in next post]
I have never talked about “attraction” in either antiquity or today. I’m referring to “orientation” as a category that explains why people think and behave as they do. That category did not exist in antiquity, so there was not a group of people who were considered “gay” in their orientation. I’m pretty sure attraction hasn’t changed significantly over the past 3000 years or so, since it is genetically driven and evolution doesn’t work that quickly. It takes thousands of generations.
Bart, I’m still not very clear on your thinking. What concerns me is statements like the following from your earlier post, “[T]hey simply thoguht [sic] that sex acts were things people chose to do, and if they did them in ways that most people didn’t do, they were unnatural.” That second clause is the sort of thing that concerns me. It sounds like you are saying most people didn’t engage in same-sex sex, that ancient sexual actors were divvied up much as today, but without the modern terms and concepts. That runs against the general consensus of scholars of the history of sexuality, which posits a more radical discontinuity with modern sexual experience, as explained in my previous posts. Now, you and other biblical scholars, who are frequently unclear or a bit off on this point, are free to disagree with expert consensus, if indeed you do disagree, but you will sound peculiar to expert and other scholars and would, especially as non-experts on the subject, have some explaining to do.
[Continued in next post]
Yes, that’s right. Most people did not engage in same-sex sex acts. This is not a controversial statement. The inclination to have sex with either someone of the opposite gender or the same gender is driven by genetics. The genetic make up of humans has not changed over the past hundreds of thousands of years. Genes, of course, are principally interested in propagating themselves; that means those humans who have genes that entail inclinations for specifically procreative sex are the ones that will by far dominate the species.
[Continued from previous post]
As for speaking of “‘ancient times’ as a lump,” there is only so much one can do here even in a two-part post with references. But one can lump ancient male-male sex in one sense. Just as one can marvel at the astonishing consistency of patriarchal thought and sexism, despite differences, so one can marvel at the remarkable consistency in the construction of ancient male-male sex primarily as pederasty. And the two are not unrelated. For good introductions, see Robert Aldrich, ed., _Gay Life and Culture: A World History_ (New York: Universe Publishing, 2006); Nicholas C. Edsall, _Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World_ (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003); Leila J. Rupp, _Sapphistries: A Global History of Love between Women_ (New York: New York University Press, 2009). Also generally useful is Arnold I. Davidson, _The Emergence of Sexuality: Historical Epistemology and the Formation of Concepts_ (2001; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). More extensive bibliographies can be provided on request, merely indicate specifically on what.
Bart, I didn’t notice that your second iteration of this post differs from the original, so some of what I said in my last two posts won’t make sense now. Based on the new end of your post, though, I can now definitively say that you either don’t understand the expert scholarly consensus on the history of sexuality or simply don’t accept it. The consensus is that the average ancient person did have different desires and behaviors than the average person in the modern industrialized West and those regions that have been sufficiently influenced by it. The average ancient man, for example, was attracted by boys, girls, and women. There is by now an avalanche of evidence on this, of texts simply assuming the notion as fact, from around the world. It’s old news. Certainly you must have been aware.
[Continued in next post]
I heartily disagree that the “average man” was attracted by boys. There is no evidence of that. As you know, we actually have no evidence at all of actual “attraction” — a psychological state. All we have access to are texts and material remains, not psychological dispositions. The texts that do describe male to male relationships are not common except in some times and places (most notably Athens and then other parts of Greek in the classical period and up into Roman imperial times)
[Continued from previous post]
The consensus is that “sexuality” specifically on the ground, in the broadest sense of the word, is more of a socio-cultural thing than a biological one. It’s called social constructionism for a reason. No evolution is required. Evolution would be required for human biology to narrowly proscribe and delineate “sexuality,” for lack of a better word, independently of culture. See the Fausto-Sterling I referenced earlier. It amazes me how many biblical scholars seem unaware of or to misunderstand all these consensus views, or can’t be bothered with them. Based on what? Where does this misplaced confidence come from? It’s not like biblical scholars are trained in or world experts on these matters. They must depend on their understanding of the work of expert scholars in other fields. Even a glance at the OCD would provide a heads up. I could provide pages of bibliography, just let me know if and in specifically what you are interested.
It’s actaully not a consensus. You may be interested in reading around in genetic theory and evolutionary psychology.
Okay, Bart, I’ll make just one last attempt at being helpful here.
I’ve been studying the history of sexuality, especially its ancient history, and in the original languages for ancient Greece, Rome, and Israel, for the past thirty years. I know my way around, to say the least. There is nothing in the multiverse I know better. (So it’s a bit silly of you to suggest I read up on the science—read the Fausto-Sterling!) My interest in your understanding of the subject is simple enough. You’re a prominent and well-known biblical scholar whose most basic bottom line is helpfully correct: the Bible doesn’t address LGB[T?]s. It would be nice, my thinking goes, if you at the very least had a correct understanding of what the scholarship actually is. I can quite assuredly inform you that, where the relevant history of sexuality is concerned, you do not.
[Continued in next post]
OK, let’s do it this way. Instead of ad hominem comments about which of us has read what, why don’t you tell me what ancient sources you are appealing to demonstrate or even claim that most ancient men (cross culturally) regularly had sex with other men, unlike what happens today? Telling me to read Halperin and Foucault and Winkler etc. is not helpful, since I have. So what ancient sources are you referring to that say what you say they say? Or is your evidence other than what ancient sources indicate about antiquity? Cause it certainly ain’t evolutionary biology!
[Continued from previous post]
Halperin, Williams, Fisher, Ormand, Boehringer, Winkler, Foucault, Lear—they all fall squarely on the social constructionist side of things, often quite famously so. If you’re not sick and tired of hearing those rather authoritative names ad nauseam, that’s a problem. You’re not going to be able to be as helpful as you would like to the people you are trying to help if you end up sounding silly and uninformed (to those with a clue) when you speak on this subject. Right now, trust me, you are sounding silly and uninformed. People in the know are going to be wary of you, rather than think you might be someone to work or collaborate with. That would be a shame and a wasted opportunity. Maybe you should start with a visit to your university’s classics department.
Good luck. If you’d like to email me privately to pose a few questions, gain some clarification, or acquire some additional bibliography, go right ahead. The various limitations of these posts are rather trying.
Recall, Bart, that my initial interest in this thread concerned your awareness of the consensus of scholars of the history of sexuality. That means history and scholars of the humanities. Scientists don’t do any of that. What they do is typically called science, not scholarship. So a few points:
1. If you have read Halperin, Williams, Boehringer, Winkler, Lear, Foucault, etc., then you already know perfectly well that they say with regard to their subjects very much what I am saying, and quite famously so. If you are widely read in the history of sexuality, then you know perfectly well that these scholars’ views represent the general consensus of expert specialist scholars on the matter. Now, you are free to disagree with that consensus, but I can’t imagine why anyone should prefer the musings of a biblical scholar over the expert opinions of classicists on this matter. Just a very obvious point, as far as I can see.
2. As for the compatibility of the view of expert historians with prevailing scientific thinking, assumptions, and hypotheses, I would direct you again to the Fausto-Sterling I referenced earlier. I would merely point out that one gets one’s history from historians, not scientists.
Are you saying you don’t have / know of any references from ancient sources to back up your claim? If you do have them, let me/us know what they are. I would love to agree with you.
And yes, I have read these authors and others (not all of them). It’s been some years (when I started teaching Foucault’s history of sexuality was all the rage; I read Halperin, Winkler etc. because I was very interstted). I don’t recall any of them saying what you claim they are saying. So give me the quotations with page references, where they say that most adult men in antiquity regularly/typically/commonly had sex with other adult men.
Wow, Bart, you really understand next to nothing about this topic. Am I meant to believe you are widely read in the history of sexuality yet are not sick of reading about how these scholars are social constructionists, and famously so, and what social constructionist means? Did the Sexuality Wars on this topic pass you by? I can’t hold those claims together. They won’t tolerate each other. I also find it excessively convenient that my companion post (point 3) discussing a primary source is even still being held up in “moderation.” Shame!
Let’s start with Halperin. Perhaps you’ll relent thereafter. I’ll make it easy and stick to his OCD article on “homosexuality” (online ed.):
“Exclusive preferences on the part of men for male or female partners, on the rare occasions when they are voiced, are treated by our sources not as deep psychological orientations of sexual desire but as extreme, amusing, and faintly absurd expressions of sexual partisanship.”
“Any sexual relation that involved the penetration of a social inferior (whether inferior in age, gender, or status) qualified as sexually normal for a male, irrespective of the penetrated person’s anatomical sex.”
“Ancient sources are informed by the routine presumption that most…
I don’t understand. These quotations do not seem to say that in antiquity (broadly? everywhere? anywhere?) men (adult males) had sex with other men (adult males) regularly and commonly, unlike today. I agree 100% with what these do say; they say what I’ve long thought and taught. Maybe it would help not just me but all our readers if you would state concisely what your view of same-sex relationshios were in antiquity (Greek, Roman, Mesopotanian,something else? 5th century? 1st century? All centuries?) and explain how one of these quotations supports that view. (I’d rather not go through all your comments to find what you’ve said, but can if you’d prefer) Maybe I’m just misunderstanding your view.
free adult males, whatever their particular tastes, are at least capable of being sexually attracted by both good-looking boys and good-looking women; such attraction was deemed normal and natural.”
Now reread Part I of his _One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love_ in this light.
Honestly, Bart, I would have thought your friend Dale would have made sure you were square on all this. I was under the impression he was sound on the subject. Perhaps that is a mistaken impression.
In any case, I strongly recommend you seek some expert on this particular subject—a classicist, a queer theorist, a historian, but one well versed in the history of sexuality—with the time, patience, and inclination to walk you through all this. I can’t do that here, in 400 words or less per day, especially if you are still so in thrall to the current construction of sexuality. In that case, this could be a multi-year process. It was for me. I started as a staunch essentialist. Boswell had nothing on me. It can take time to overcome initial assumptions here. I imagine that is part of what allows a construction of sexuality to persist.
Good luck.
3. You know perfectly well that we could not possibly do justice to the avalanche of relevant ancient literature and sources on this blog, even were it my actual topic. In fact, that is precisely why it wasn’t my actual topic. The scholarship does a far better job of it than we possibly could here. But I can’t help posing a question or two to you. How would you make head or tails of something like Plato’s _Symposium_ from your professed view? Do you suppose that, of all the males that could have taken an interest in and pursued philosophy, Plato addressed his work only to that minority of males that loved males? Really? That would certainly be a new one. Or do you suppose that only your minority of male-loving males pursued philosophy? That would be another new one. Certainly Plato addressed all males that could pursue philosophy, and assumed they were generally susceptible to boyish charms. What would that mean biologically, in terms of your view? What sense would you make of something like Aeschines 1? Or Greek and Roman mythology?
[I truly loathe the limitations of these posts.]
So you think the Symposium shows that men in antiquity generally had sex with other adult men? Really? OK, then. You know as well as I that pederasty was a widespread practice among the classical Greek Athenians. Pederasty. Classical Athens. Which of those authors that you are citing (Halperin, Winkler, Foucault, etc) thinks the dialogue shows that in antiquity men normally had sex with other men. I loathe the limitations of the posts too, so feel free to give it to me briefly. Give me titles and page numbers.
And of course it does not say what you’re indicating it does. You are very wrong indeed if you think that the dialogue presupposes that same -sex love among males was a necessary preliminary to philosophy.
Bart, I must be plain. You’re off the rails. Where have you gotten this preposterous idea about ancient adult men having sex with ancient adult men? Certainly not from me. That’s for sure.
The core argument of the speech of Diotima (201d–212c), towards which the entire _Symposium_ is headed, fails if the average man to whom the dialogue is directed cannot start with pederastic attraction and courtship. Everybody knows that. Catch up.
If you can’t immediately see the direct correspondence between my original statement,
“That is, the typical ancient man was attracted to boys, girls, and women,”
and Halperin’s statement,
“Ancient sources are informed by the routine presumption that most free adult males, whatever their particular tastes, are at least capable of being sexually attracted by both good-looking boys and good-looking women; such attraction was deemed normal and natural,”
then you are well beyond my ability and inclination to help you.
Halperin, like the social constructionists generally, who won the Sexuality Wars that raged across the humanities between them and the biological essentialists during the 1980s and 90s, believes sexual desire and behavior …
[Continued in next post]
You do know what pederasty is, right?
[Continued from previous post]
… are driven primarily by society and culture and have varied wildly over time, especially between ancient and modern times. You have been putting forth an essentialist view: ancient desires and behaviors, with respect to the sex of sexual objects, were divvied up much as today, but merely without the corresponding terms and theories.
You can read about the debate in Edward Stein, ed., _Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy_ (1990; New York: Routledge, 1992), published in the middle of the debate and much cited at the time. Note how Halperin is characterized therein. Indeed, looking back on my thirty years of research into all this, I cannot offhand recall another scholar who claims to have read Halperin and yet has failed to understand the gist of what he’s saying.
I have done what I could. I’ve put you on notice that you lack a great deal of understanding and awareness here. You will do with that as you will. You already have my advice on how to proceed. But you will have to proceed without me. I lack the time, patience, and inclination to help you further.
Good luck.
Bart, who doesn’t know what pederasty is? Do you know what a non sequitur is? I would have thought my (re)use of “pederastic” and “boys” in my previous posting spree, together with earlier uses of “boys,” “pederasty,” “boyish,” and “man” (paired with “boy[s]”) might have clued you in. Or are you still confusing “male” and “man”? You would have to get over that habit even to begin to address this subject constructively.
In any case, the current state of affairs is well represented by Caroline Vout’s excellent essay on images of Antinous in her book _Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome_ (2007; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 52–135. She simply assumes that the average man could be sexually attracted to Antinous and his images, without argument. That is the current state of things among experts. More often than not, they simply assume the consensus in their work as a done deal.
Happy reading, or whatever.
If pederasty involves an adult man with a pre-adolescent boy (as it does) then I don’t see how a comment about men regularly being involved with or engaging in pederasty (presumably he’s referring to classical Athens? I haven’t checked. But it certainly was not true of the vast majority of other times and places we know about from antiquity) has any bearing on your statement that in antiquity generally adult men regularly/commonly had sex with other men. Explain the connection to me.
As to Vout: does she assume this? I haven’ read her. Quote me a sentence or two where she says that. And are you now talking about attraction or sex acts? Your original comments (and the position you are staking) is the latter, correct?
Bart, surely you must realize you know nothing about all this. That much could not be plainer by now. Why then would you make ludicrous, baseless assertions like these? It’s embarrassing.
First, kindly quote for me where I have said anything about adult men having sex with adult men in Antiquity. Hint: you will fail. How have you gotten that nonsense into your head? I can only suspect you are misreading “male” as “man,” yet again. You will have to get over that.
Second, the younger partner in pederastic relations was not generally a “pre-adolescent.” He was generally an adolescent or young man. The classic age range provided by the Antique sources is 12 to 17/18. See, e.g., the locus classicus, _Anth. Pal._ 12.4 (LCL). In practice, though, the range seems sometimes to have extended into the early twenties. This is exceedingly basic information.
Third, I originally spoke of sexual desire, but I proceed from the assumption that sexual behavior tends to arise from and is closely related to sexual desire. Perhaps you hold to a different theory of some sort?
[Continued in next post]
Ah, well, on your first point: I’d be happy to be mistaken. I’m not going to go back through all your many comments to see what you originally said. So tell me your view, and if it seriously does conflict with what I thought you were saying, I’ll look up the older comments just to figure out where I got that wrong.
Also, could you tell me when and where you were referring to? E.g., aer you speaking of Athens in the 5th century? Rome in the 1st century? Everywhere in the ancient world from. .. when to when?
If this is all a misunderstanding, then it’s understandable, so to say, that we aer speaking right past eiach other. I’ve never denied that pederasty was a common practice in classical Athens among the socially elite. My very strong impression is that this is not at all what you were arguing.
Fourth, pederasty has been the primary structuring feature and ideology of male-male sex and eroticism for most of recorded human history. This was true of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, pre-modern China and Japan, pre-modern Muslim societies, medieval Europe, Renaissance Italy, etc. Everybody knows that. It’s covered early in History of Sexuality 101. See the introductions I cited earlier. See, also, David M. Halperin, _How to Do the History of Homosexuality_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002). For that matter, as to Antiquity, see Halperin’s comments in the OCD under the “Periodization” and “‘Greek Love’” sections of his article. It’s not just Athens. The very idea is absurd.
Fifth, Vout assumes the consensus view throughout her essay. Read it. A quick skim of under a minute will make things clear enough. I already told you I will not be your personal Vergil holding your hand through the blazing Inferno of your ignorance of this subject. You will have to roll up your sleeves and do the work for yourself. The history of sexuality is a demanding, full-time endeavor unto itself—more difficult, I dare say, than what you’re used to, and I’ve studied both.
Again, hie thee to a willing expert!
Dr. Ehrman,
As a Greek expert as well as a textual critic, lets say you were overseeing a committee on a new translation of the passages discussed in this post. How would you translate the compound word? Plus, imagine you did not have the tradition of translating it as homosexual, so you would not necessarily translate it that way since there was no history of doing so. Just thought it would be fun to pick your brain.
Thanks, Jay
And this is why I will never publish a translation of the NT…. I don’t know.
In any event, nobody believes Paul was God, God’s son, Messiah, or a prophet. He wasn’t even one of Jesus’ disciples. An Apostle after the fact, maybe. He’s a man who persecuted Christians, then had a vision, and decided to become one, and he happened to write well in Greek, and have a knack for theology and proselytization, which made him a rare combination of talents among early Christians.
One of the most influential figures in early Christianity, arguably the most, and no doubt he had a brilliant mind, and a deep sense of spirituality, but that’s hardly a basis for depriving people of their civil rights–and he’s not talking about civil rights. He’s talking about who gets into the Kingdom, which he still believes, like Jesus, is coming in the near future.
Okay, let’s say you believe the Kingdom is still coming someday–or that Paul really means the afterlife. Either way–that’s not your call, it’s God’s, and it has no bearing on how you treat people around you. Jesus said treat everyone well, even those who hate and persecute you. And if you don’t, you’ll be in Gehenna (or hell) with them.
Paul was more interested in sexual behavior than Jesus, but there is nothng to indicate he wanted people whose preferences he disapproved of (and remember, his preference was that nobody have sex at all, and never out of wedlock, which leaves out just about everybody these days) to be persecuted and deprived of their rights. He was just saying that all these people whose behavior was unsatisfactory would be judged by God when the Kingdom came.
You can make a case for Leviticus (which devotes a few words to condemning male on male sex) being the basis for earthly laws, but few if any modern Christians want to live in a world where those laws are strictly enforced. The books of the New Testament are not books of laws, because (in the words of Stevie Smith) “Those who truly hear the voice, the words, the happy song, never shall need working laws to keep from doing wrong.” If you need earthly laws to be good, you’re not good enough for the Kingdom. The laws you follow are written in your heart. And I’ve known too many good-hearted gay people to think they’re going against those laws by following the orientation they were born with–and in fact, they organized to fight for their right to marry (rather than burn). Paul never knew any same-sex oriented people like that. How do we know he wouldn’t have approved? 🙂
Stephen Carlson’s explanation:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/bosdisc-carlson.asp
“Dale Martin has shown that in the earliest usages outside of 1 Corinthians, it is often lumped together with *economic* / *money* sins, rather than or in addition to *sexual* sins.”
He has not shown it. Paul is saying in every way possible that all forms of sex outside of marriage are condemned. That’s one of the emerging themes in Paul’s letters that is very clear. Martin is essentially attempting to disconnect Paul from the condemnation of same-sex acts by manipulating the meaning of the texts. By doing that, he forces Paul to condemn all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage EXCEPT FOR same-sex acts. As if that makes any sense. He is desperately trying to bring Paul into the 21st century, and it does not work. This post combined with the other article linked to Martin shows (to me anyway) that he is pushing his idea of social justice. I’m all for social justice, but not if it means misconstruing information in an attempt to confuse people into believing something they wouldn’t believe otherwise. It’s very dishonest and deceitful.
Paul mentioning it “a handful of times” does not mean it was not extremely important to him. In fact, he makes it very clear that sexual sin will keep people out of the kingdom of God. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Paul didn’t understand that people could be born with different sexual orientations. Homosexual desire is connected to disbelief in God which leads to idolatry which leads to depraved lustful passions. That’s what I see when I read Paul. Certainly, there are Christians who focus on sexual sin while forgetting about other sins, but there are also Christians who believe homosexuality is sinful while being generous and kind and never touching a drop of alcohol.
I can’t recall the texts right off the top of my head at the moment, but there are a couple of ancient writers who did recognize sexual orientation. They specifically mention that they were born that way. They weren’t Jewish authors, but the concept was not entirely foreign in the ancient world.
On another note, I am curious to see if Disney moves forward with its lesbian storyline in Frozen. I’m even more curious to see the reaction is gets from Christians.
Carlson’s article is dealing with the specific claims of Boswell that the term means “male prostitute.” That’s not Dale Martin’s claim. To see whether he shows that the term is early on used on contexts of economic sins, you would need to read the article. His ultimate view is that we’re not sure what it means exactly. I do disagree with Stephen that it means “homosexual” since ancient people didn’t have a concept of sexuality at all, and so did not have categories for hetero-sexual, homo-sexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, etc. They knew that people behaved in certain ways sexually, and they disapproved of most of these ways, but they did not condemn sexual orientations since they had never heard of such things.
Martin can’t figure out what ARSENOKOITES means but has a very clear view for the meaning of PORNEIA. So in one place, we can’t assume what male bedder means, while in another place, we can be confident that fornication can mean lust between husbands and wives.
You see how this comes across as an agenda, right?
I do agree that Paul didn’t understand sexual orientation; however, I also understand that, for Paul, all sexual activity was to be within the confines of marriage. Paul also indicates that all sin, not just sexual sin, is tied to rebellion against God.
No, not at all. That’s the whole point. PORNEIA is an extremely common word and you can see how it is used in context after context after context in order to see how it is functioning. That’s precisely what you canNOT do with ARSENOKOITES. If it had been used a lot, we would be in a completely different situation.
“No, not at all. That’s the whole point. PORNEIA is an extremely common word and you can see how it is used in context after context after context in order to see how it is functioning.”
All right. How is porneia functioning in 1 Thess. 4:3-6 and how is it functioning in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9?
1 Thess 4:3-6 is inordinately and famously difficult. It gives commentators fits. It involves sexual immorality, but the Greek is a paroblem. V. 4 urges a man to “acquire” or to “hold” his “vessel” in holiness and honor. Does that mean “acquire a wife” (as the vessel for his semen) or to “hold/control his penis”? Probably the former, though it’s not a very high opinion of the woman in the matter. And why does he contrast what he’s urging with what the pagans who do not know God do, who do this thin, whatever it is, out of the passsion of lust? If he’s talking about acquiring a wife, he seems to be saying that the man should marry to procreate rather than to fulfill his sexual desire. Marrying and having sex because of desire is porneia. One more indication we live in a different world from the NT authors. Why doing whatever the person is not supposed to do might “defraud a brother in the matter” is open to a number of interpretations.
In Matthew it appears to be referring to women who engate in sexual immorality. But it doesn’t specify if that means adultery or forbidden sexual practices. The latter doesn’t occur to most readers, but the word may mean that, and it’s striking that Jesus’ exception clause is not “except for reason of adultery” but “except for reason of porneia.” He certatinly oculd have said the former, but chose not to.
Pattycake1974, no ancient authors recognize our very modern sexual orientations. That is the overwhelming consensus of expert specialist scholars of the history of sexuality. A few scholars here and there have attempted to argue otherwise, but they have failed to change that consensus. These rogue scholars, so to speak, typically commit a number of common and rather amateur errors: they mistake male adult anal receptivity for male “homosexuality,” they read astrological texts explaining just about everything under the sun as fated by the configuration of heavenly bodies at birth as reliable indicators of what a culture views as actually inborn, and they mistake an elaborate political joke for serious sexual commentary, for example. In other words, one must be meticulous with context and the nature of one’s sources.
There is no way that the passage in question allows for any interpretation that doesnt include a condemnation of homosexual ACTS.
The idea that Scripture also condemns homosexual DESIRE is reading a contemporary Protestant and biased understanding back into the passage.
Homosexual acts are condemned. The inclination to commit such acts is not addressed in Paul’s letter.
Great post – and so needed (why IS that, in 2019!?).
I’m tempted to say – snarkily – . . . Well, OK, it may be hard to work out just what that word meant, but then some of us also find it very VERY hard to puzzle out what the Bible means when it says ‘Love They Neighbour As Thyself.’
I mean that’s open to SO many and SUCH difficult intepretations . . . (NOT!!!)
Here in Australia a rugby player(and devout Christian) was fired after posting the 1 Corinthians verse on his social media page. He was fired for being homophobic. He took Rugby Australia to court and walked away with millions of dollars. This incident gained a lot of media attention.
Yeah, maybe he should have used a different English translation. But then I’d guess he’d be a lot poorer for it.
Hey Bart. I had a question about you and Islam. I understand that you are not trained in Islamic studies, but the Quran, Muslim Holy Book, does contain the alleged sayings of Jesus and things that happened in his life. Jesus is the most mentioned figure in the Quran as far as I know.
I am wondering, why haven’t you analyzed what percentage of sayings in the Quran actually goes bad to the “Historical Jesus”? What number of events described in the Quran go back to the “Historical Jesus”?
Do you think that the Quran is absolutely worthless from a critical standpoint when determining what Jesus said and did?
The Qur’an certainly got its information from the Christian stories in circulation about Jesus. There isn’t any historically reliable information in it that is unavailable elsewhere. In large measure that’s because of it’s date. By that time, no one had independent access to the things Jesus said and did.
In reply to Godspell’s post and specifically praising Paul for his thoughtful mind in those days. A few years ago , I was reading an article in a magazine, in which i cannot remember the name, about four research companies who conducted an analysis among scholars and other meaningful folks on the top ten thinkers (philosophers ) of all time. Surprisingly, one of them had Paul as number four. Most of them had Plato, Socrates, Kant and so forth. But for one company, Paul was regarded a great thinker. I thought you may find it interesting.
wow. OK, then!
Hi Dr Ehrman:
I heard an argument to response that. It goes like this. The septuagint is the translation of the hebrew bible to greek. So in that version in Leviticus 20:13 the expresion “ἄρσενος κοίτην” is used that is very close to ARSENOKOITES and in that verse is epxlicitly said it refers to sexual relatiions. Wouldn’t be the case that Paul is refering to that expressión of Levicitus?.
That’s a very interesting argument. I would have to look at it more fully. At first blush the only hesitancy is that αρσενος κοιτην isn’t a stand alone phrase in Lev. 20:13, it’s part of a larger construction that clearly indicates what is meant: “whoever κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος”. The grammar is a bit odd and I’m not completely sure how to construe it It’s not clear to me at first how the accusative κοιτην is functioning. It’s obviously not an object of κοιμηθη (at least I think it’s obvious), since the verb is intransitive, meaning “to sleep” (i.e. it doesn’t take an objtect) In any event, since it’s modified by the genitive γυναικος it appears to be some kind of comparative, but that doesn’t make sense of the accusative. Is it some kind of odd accusative of respect? In any case, it *seems* to mean something like “whoever sleeps with a man in the way one shares a bed with a woman.” And that certainly does mean, whoever (masculine) has sex with a man as he would with a woman” and the act is clearly condemned. That’s no surprise given what is said earlier in Leviticus 18. But it’s a great question: is Paul (or someone before him) inventing the word ARSENOKOITES with this passage in mind? I just don’t know. If anyone has better insights in the grammar (than what I can come up with on the spot) or furhter comments, I’d welcome them.
yeah it is interesting. I’ll try to search something that clarify this. Thank you Dr.
Bart: ““whoever κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος”. The grammar is a bit odd and I’m not completely sure how to construe it It’s not clear to me at first how the accusative κοιτην is functioning. … In any event, since it’s modified by the genitive γυναικος it appears to be some kind of comparative, but that doesn’t make sense of the accusative. Is it some kind of odd accusative of respect? In any case, it *seems* to mean something like “whoever sleeps with a man in the way one shares a bed with a woman.” … If anyone has better insights in the grammar (than what I can come up with on the spot) or furhter comments, I’d welcome them.”
Definitely agree with the sense of your translation, but at the risk of being a stickler for grammatical terminology, I think you’re actually describing an adverbial accusative of manner. And don’t worry too much about the genitive, it is merely a literal translation of the Hebrew משכבי אשה.
I’d assume it’s a cognate accusative with γυναικος as an objective genitive?
Bart: “I’d assume it’s a cognate accusative with γυναικος as an objective genitive?”
Sure, it’s a cognate accusative (both in Greek and the underlying Hebrew [ישכב משכבי]), but a cognate accusative need not be adverbial and here it is, in both the Hebrew and Greek. I still think you’re worrying about analyzing the Greek genitive too much. I suppose you could try to push the idea of an objective genitive here by thinking of κοίτη as related to the preceding active cognate verb, but it’s just a literal translation of the underlying Hebrew construct (משכבי אשה). When you hear hoof beats, think ‘horse’ before imagining ‘zebras’.
If it’s a cognate accusative, how can it be adverbial? It’s functioning as an object of the verb restating the verbal notion in nominal form. If you fib a lie, you’re just tellin’ a lie. On the genitive, I was just replying to your construal; the Greek, I believe, is simply an objective genitive.
the Hebrew is a completely different point. I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Do you imagine Paul was thinking in Hebrew?
Bart: “If it’s a cognate accusative, how can it be adverbial? It’s functioning as an object of the verb restating the verbal notion in nominal form. If you fib a lie, you’re just tellin’ a lie. On the genitive, I was just replying to your construal; the Greek, I believe, is simply an objective genitive.
the Hebrew is a completely different point. I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Do you imagine Paul was thinking in Hebrew?”
Paul? I’m not talking about Paul! I’ve been quoting and replying to your request for help in understanding the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew of Leviticus 20,13. On the adverbial accusative in Hebrew, see GKC §118,5. Your own translation of the LXX here is adverbial, is it not? “in the way one shares a bed with a woman.” Unless you’ve changed your mind about your own translation, that should be enough to convince you that this is both a cognate accusative and an adverbial accusative of manner (ie, in the manner in which one shares a bed with a woman) in both the Hebrew (ישכב … משכבי) and the Greek (κοιμηθη … κοιτην). Capisce?
Sorry — brain dead. Someone else jsut asked me a question about Paul and sexuality and — hey, why not answer two questions at once. But seriously: is capisce from the Hebrew or Paul?
OK, even more seriously, I understand it as a cognate accusative, and those are almost never translated into English as (English) cognate accusatives. I’m not sure how one could even try to translated it literally; I think I could do it with crude English but nothing publishable. Something like “Whatever man sexually intercourses a man the intercourse that is (normally) had with a woman…..”
Bart: “Sorry — brain dead. Someone else jsut asked me a question about Paul and sexuality and — hey, why not answer two questions at once. But seriously: is capisce from the Hebrew or Paul?
OK, even more seriously, I understand it as a cognate accusative, and those are almost never translated into English as (English) cognate accusatives. I’m not sure how one could even try to translated it literally; I think I could do it with crude English but nothing publishable. Something like “Whatever man sexually intercourses a man the intercourse that is (normally) had with a woman…..”
I think the way you already translated it (above) is good English and it clearly follows an understanding of the Greek as being both a cognate accusative lexically and an adverbial accusative of manner grammatically. Ask your brother or even do a quick Google search for “cognate accusative used adverbially” and you will find world-class classicists identifying a number of such examples in Homer, Xenophon, and Vergil.
While possible, it’s not necessary to reproduce a cognate accusative in English. It worked out fine from the original Hebrew into the LXX Greek, but that’s a different question of translation, not grammar.
Capisce? That’s Italian.
Grazie!
Prego!
That’s spaghetti sauce.
It certainly is for most people in my part of the world….
I made a reply to you about the Septuagint and Leviticus, but I must have not been paying attention and made my comment into the blogosphere somewhere. Anywho, Carlson mentions the same thing in the link I mentioned.
This is extremely interesting. Who is the first known author to use “ARSENOKOITES” explicitly to mean men having sex with men? A related question–when do Christians unambiguously understand these passages in Paul to refer to men having sex with men?
I’m not sure there is an unambiguous usage that explains it. It certainly was understood that way by the time the early Latin translations of the NT were done, say in the second century or so.
I think the fact that “orientation” is a modern concept ,, has no effect on Christian theology at all. And even those facts about some uncertainty in the biblical passages have almost zero bearing on the fact that it is most sure that homosexual desires and or thoughts and acts were condemned by the earliest of Christians, and the majority of modern denominations, including the most traditional of the, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. You can find, by the way, many, many references to thoughts in the mystical writings from the earliest of days, some very detailed , about how to receive them, how to reject them, etc. So desires , thoughts, emotions, an inner landscape, not using the exact same terms, were recognized. And in that area, sexual desires towards anyone EXCEPT your wife, and even that in very limited areas, like you said no oral sex and no anal sex, no sex during menstruation, certain periods of prayer, etc were considered sinful . The more they deviated from the purpose of procreation and nature as they saw the more sinful they were considered. Oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, sex with the same gender, etc. I , of course, am coming from a country with a heavy emphasis on the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, not the New Testament per say, and tradition handed down. The Eastern Orthodox.
The Pauline material has always been a problem for me. Some is authentic and some is not. So it seems that it would be wise to strip out the forgeries. Even if we do that, we are left with writings based on visionary material. Did Paul have a seizure? A concussion? Whatever happened to him, to turn him into the advocate he became, seems to make his writings suspect. I don’t understand why Paul should be taken seriously. One could say that he did a great job of perverting Christ’s message, right from the git-go. But even if we strip out ALL of the Pauline material, and reduce the New Testament to the four gospels, we still have problems. We don’t know who wrote them. They conflict with each other on many points. They are after-the-fact. Even the things that Jesus is said to have said don’t provide a path to “salvation” that any human being could follow, since you’ve got a variety of thought crimes, and demands that would make any sort of normal human life impossible. No family life. No reproduction. Christians strictly towing the line of Christ would die out in short order. On that basis it makes sense that Jesus would have been preparing people for an imminent event, so that nobody would need to consider the practical problems posed by Christ’s moral and ethical teachings over the long haul. There wasn’t going to be a long haul. Most of what Christianity is today seems to be the result of adaptations to the non-appearance of the Kingdom. The result is pretty grotesque, if you ask me. I never saw it so clearly until I began to read your books. Keep up the good work.
I wouldn’t say most of his writings are based on visionary material. He does mention a vision in 2 Corinthians 12, but he indicates that what he saw in it cannot be communicated. He certainly did have some kind of vision of Jesus that affected his views, if that’s what you mean.
Yup– that’s what I meant. Thank you. Was that vision of Jesus the basis of everything else that followed from Paul? It does at least seem to have been the game changer. I wonder in what sense it could not be communicated? Was he prohibited from communicating the details? Or would it not have made sense to anyone else if he had described it? In that case one might suppose that, whatever it was he saw in the vision, there might have been a component of conviction that would not obviously follow from a description of the content. Conviction, then, would have been a part of the experience and not an obvious consequence of whatever he might have “seen”. I’ve never had a vision so I have no idea how visions work. Quite a mystery there. If I ever had a vision I think my first impulse might be to see a doctor, fearing a brain tumor.
Yup, it was a game changer. Lots of people have come up with psychological or physiological explanations, but I don’t think it’s remotely possible, tiven how incredibly sparse the evidence is.
Some of the ancient graffiti around the Roman Empire reveals some elements of the cavalier attitude of engaging in homosexuality.
1. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, is ARSENOKOITES the only sin listed that does not translate to an English word?
2. You mentioned the poosiblilty of sin involving money. Were there pagan temples where men could pay to have sex with other men? Could this be the issue being discussed?
1. It’s the only word that is made up for the occasion; the word next to it, often translated “effeminate” is difficult too. I’ll be talking about that in a later post. 2. That’s an argument often made, but I’ve never actually looked into it.
Hey Bart, I want to know about the traditional attributions of the gospels. How rare is it for a serious scholar to hold ANY form of traditional attribution? Even for a single gospel? Is it seen as a minority view or is it seen as more of a conspiracy theory, like Christ Myth Theory?
Thanks
It depends how you count the scholars. There are probably more committed theologically conservative biblical scholars than any other kind, and most of them probably hold to the traditional ascriptions. Scholars without personal commitments to the absolute accuracy of the Bible or the historical record tend to be more skeptical. Anecdotally, by far the majority of *my* friends and colleagues in the field don’t hold to the traditional ascriptions at all. So I’d say that most critical, non-confessional scholars, doubt the ascriptions.
I believe Carlson says the same thing in the article I linked. Paul’s expression of arsenokoites is taken from Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint.
What about “the effeminate” being condemned to Hell?
I’m getting to that.
I read some of Martin’s book online. (It’s on Google books) He mentions the word “licentiousness” being tied to same-sex acts. I brought that word up a couple of weeks ago because it seemed to be connected with same-sex acts in the NT. I don’t see that he addresses it being used in the NT though.
He mentions outside biblical sources that employ the word arsenokoites that are vague, tied to homosexual sex and money, and same-sex acts In general. So, there are a few references where the word means same-sex acts.
He makes somewhat of an assumption that Paul is talking about economic sins in 1 Corinthians 6 with “thieves, robbers, greed, etc… because Theophilus of Antioch writes something similar. But I don’t think we can assume that these particular vices are not connected to sexual sin as well. Paul discusses sexual sin both before and after Chapter 6. In fact, that’s all he seems to be focused on and it’s a continual pattern for a large portion of Corinthians. He may even be addressing men only because he starts out by saying there’s sexual immorality reported: a man is living with his father’s wife so hand him over to Satan. Put him out because no brother can be sexually immoral;
or be greedy—want a woman that isn’t theirs
an idolator—sexual sins regarding idols
reviler—couldn’t this also be reveling, as in, carousing?
a drunkard—drinking and partying and engaging in sexual sin
a robber—taking a woman that isn’t theirs
Paul then talks about judgment and putting out the wicked person; (very much like Leviticus)
He then makes a strange statement about handling issues themselves, but could he be referring to going to court because someone took another man’s wife unlawfully?
Then he says that they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they are—
sexually immoral
(Sexual) idolators
Adulterers
Have sex with a man as a submissive and/or dominant
Take or want what isn’t theirs sexually
Partying and having sex
Stealing another man’s woman
Next section—they can’t have sex with female prostitutes either.
Next chapter—what to do when they can’t control themselves: get married.
Some extra information about food and idols
Paul can take a wife too if he wants
Remember what happened during the exodus: they worshiped idols and rose up to play—flee idol worship and don’t indulge sexually.
The head of the man is the woman in a marriage.
I have wondered about the best translation for arsenokoites. Even the usually reliable NRSV chooses to use “sodomite” which is a word with a ton of baggage. I think I’d be happier if they would just say “arsenokoites” and then add a footnote that said something like, “A Greek word whose meaning is unclear.”
“I have wondered about the best translation for arsenokoites. Even the usually reliable NRSV chooses to use “sodomite” which is a word with a ton of baggage. I think I’d be happier if they would just say “arsenokoites” and then add a footnote that said something like, “A Greek word whose meaning is unclear.””
I agree that “sodomite” has too much baggage in addition to being archaic. I prefer the NIV for 1 Corinthians 6:9–
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men”
With this translation, it can still be argued that Paul never understood sexual orientation. The only thing unclear to me is the translator’s purpose and/or motivation.
Just writing to myself late at night while I caught up on some reading. I found one thing that stood out in the I Corinthian verse. ‘nor homosexual’ is the only sin listed that is not a choice. We choose to commit adultery, steal, covet, drink, swindle, the only other sin I have trouble with is effeminate. In these modern times of human suffering we know that children do not choose this path, they are put on it. But still those that put a child on the street had a choice.
Ancient authors did see it as a “choice.” That’s why it’s so outdated, I think. (Your points a good one: they include it with all other things that are choices.
Did the New Testament implicitly condemn homosexuality for the culture in which it was written?
I have read that many (most?) marriages in the ancient world were arranged. I’d venture that the vast majority of parents arranging marriages for their kids would arrange for heterosexual marriages. Since the New Testament condemns adultery, prostitution, and premarital relations generally, wouldn’t same-sex relations then have been viewed as falling under one of those three categories–and hence condemned?
I’m going to be arguing that Paul opposed same-sex relations in Romans 1, but only there in the entire NT. But that’s not the same thing as “homosexuality.” ANcients new about people who sex with someone of the same sex, but no conception of “sexuality” as an orientation etc.
Hi Bart. Thanks for all your brilliant work. The modern Greek word for homosexual is omofylofilos, which would have been something like homophylophilos in ancient Greek I expect. Not arsenokoites. So much of modern Greek is the same as two thousand years ago. (Arsenikos still means ‘masculine’, koiti now means ‘river bed’ but its original derivatives are still koitida ‘cradle’ and koitonas ‘dormitory’.)
Thanks. Yes, there was no ancient word for it. The original etymology, in antiquity, is from ανηρ (adult male) and κοιτη (which most commonly meant “marriage bed”; e.g., in the fifth century tragedists)
Bart, I don’t understand why you keep making the same mistake here. The Greek word αρσην does not mean “adult male” and is an entirely separate word from ανηρ, which does mean “man” or “adult male.” The word αρσην simply means “male,” regardless of age, which is irrelevant to the term. Any lexicon will make this abundantly clear. You somehow got mixed up here. In any case, a discussion in terms of “males” may well turn out to be about pederasty, as pederasty could certainly be described as being about “males,” especially when pederasty is the default assumption for male-male sex, as it was in ancient times.
Sorry, my bad. You’re right: αρσην means male. There is nothing in the word itself (or the context in which he uses it) to suggest that Paul is coining it to refer to pederasty, though if course it is often taken that way.
ARSENOKOITES = משכב זכר (heb.) mishkav zecher = definitely means homosexuality
The word is not etymologically related to Hebrew (or in any other way)
Hi Bart.
This was great. I am wondering if you can refer me to a few of the most recent scholarly articles on this topic. I can then work backwards through the citations.
I will send an email to you so you can mention them there if you prefer.
Thx.
I’d suggest you start with Dale Martin’s book ( a collection of essays, really) “Sex and the Single Savior”
Dr Ehrman
My earliest teacher told me that the other sins(greed or sex outside marriage) that you mentioned should be condemned too and not only homosexuality, she said those acts can be forgiven by God for as long as this person repent after doing the acts and stopped doing them again.
Now, how can a homosexual be forgiven if they can’t stop being who they are?
Thats why homosexuals according to her they should be condemned because homosexuals chose to give up their souls to satan without a fight. Children who went to religion classes with this teacher grew up knowing this to be true. And therefore, the prejudice against LGBTQ people back home is rampant.
Dr Ehrman if I’m in that class right now, what can I say to her that is polite, so that she’s not embarrassed in front of the class? (that way she won’t flunk me ????)
Thank you Dr. Ehrman????
Yeah, maybe nothing in class. But it’s important for everyone to see that what were long thought to be “sins” are no longer considered that, even by those committed to the Bible. It is no longer a sin to get a divorce, or for a woman to speak in church, or to wear a garment made of two different fabrics, and so on; at one point in biblical history it was not a sin to engage in polygamy. We now understand sexuality better than they did 2000 years ago, and so we know that “being homosexual” is not a sinful choice but a genetic reality, and our ethical codes need to reflect it.
Hi Dr. Ehrman! I just joined the blog two days ago and I haven’t put my phone down since 🙂
I have three questions ( to start)…
About the passage from Timothy cited above, what is the Greek word translated “effeminate” and what did Paul mean?
Next, I am teaching Children’s Church this Sunday, and the lesson is about Philip and his friend the Ethiopian eunich. How would you explain the title “eunich” to the elementary school crowd?
It was while I was reading about eunichs that I stumbled on your blog. If you have time, could you give some thoughts on what Jesus meant when He was talking about the three types of eunichs in Matthew 19? Or maybe there is a blog post on this already? I am very excited to hear your answers. Thank you!
Welcome Angela! When you submit a question to me I don’t get the earlier post on which you are asking it, so I’m not sure which passage from Timothy was quoted above. So you’ll need to tell me next time (and that way other readers can see) USUALLY in the NT the Greek word translated effeminate is a MALAKOS, which literally means “soft.” Ah, I would say that a eunuch was the word to describe one of the king’s servants. And no, I haven’t posted on that, but it appears to be referring to men who have been born without testicles (or thought to be forn without them, if they hadn’t dropped), men who had been castrated by others (e.g., to serve kings), and men who castrated themselves for religious reasons (possibly with the mistaken notion that castration would eliminate sexual desire and thus make it easier not to sin).
“the etymology of the word is not determinative of its meaning”
I wish you hadn’t said that, as it rather spoils the aptness of pointing to the etymology of “arsenic” and saying, “I always knew masculinity was poison!”
Seriously, though …
In William Barclay’s commentary on Matthew 5:27-28 (the passage about the adultery of the eyes), he writes that Jesus is “not speaking of the natural, normal desire, which is part of human instinct and human nature” but of “the man who deliberately uses his eyes to awaken his lust, the man who looks in such a way that passion is awakened and desire deliberately stimulated”.
Barclay’s understanding of human sexuality was flawed, but we can make use of his dichotomy.
I remember, in my youth, arguing with conservative Christian students of the Greek New Testament about whether homosexual thought is itself sinful, and though I knew Barclay’s analysis, I failed to find the courage to reference it and point out that if Jesus does not condemn “natural” heterosexual thought, then neither does he condemn the homosexual equivalent. (At the time, I believed homosexual *acts* _were_ sinful.)
This will most likely be my final comment on posts dated 2019 or earlier. Onward 2020!
Actually, I would like to make an additional comment here. It amounts to an emphatic agreement with your point that “the passage(s) condemn other activities as well as just as heinous and awful”, something I wholeheartedly agreed with back when I was a believer and thought gay sex was sinful.
Paul tells his readers in Romans 2:1 that they are in no position to judge others, as they are guilty of “the same things”. I have always interpreted this as meaning not literally the same things, but an idiosyncratic way of saying “things that are just as heinous and awful”. And this warning occurs shortly after Paul’s condemnation of allegedly “unnatural” sexual practices in Romans 1.
Seems significant.
Thank you for the example of the ethymology of dandelion. I would never have come to the realization that the English and French and German names are coming from the same words/ideas.
I am German so for me “Löwenzahn” (literally Lions tooth as you may well know) is the term I’m used to but I never thought about where the English term comes from.
Yup, lots of interesting relationships. I can see the attraction of comparative linguistics!
Hey Bart,
Hope you are doing well. I was wondering what the mainstream view of scholarship is on the typical ages of marriage for Jewish Girls during either the time composition or up until Jesus’ time? I read somewhere that Rabbis recommend the age 18, but I think this was only for wealthy males? Thanks again Bart.
When they reach puberty. So probalby 13 or so? the idea was that woman who *could* have children needed to start doing so.