Okay, here is the next to the last post on Untangling Early Christian Attitudes. This one is a bit long and covers the earliest Christian writings, namely the New Testament. I really appreciate everyone's patience with the way I am presenting this information. I assume having a single post with a 30 page paper attached would be a bit intimidating and daunting for most folks. I have discovered that some of the ways I described gender variance were confusing. For my lack of sensitivity to the transgender community, I apologize. I will use greater care in the future when quoting others who also lack sensitivity. I have attempted to clean it up in this post. Whatever you think of my writings, know that God loves you!
Notwithstanding
the beliefs of many folks today, Scripture is not as clear as one might
think. While a complete exegesis on each
of the places within scripture commonly used to “prove” that the Bible condemns
homosexuality would be helpful, such is beyond the scope of this paper. I will attempt instead to give a brief overview
of alternative understandings of the main passages in question.
It is helpful to
understand that vice lists were common during the first part of Common Era and
were used by both philosophers and religious leaders. Elliot indicates that the I Corinthians vice
lists were probably not created by Paul, but were rather, “adopted and adapted
by him from existing tradition.”
He
further indicates that the vice lists used are “supplemental not essential.”
Harrill points out that the I Timothy vice
list resembles closely one from Pollux.
He further points out that when Aristotle
used a vice list similar to that used by Paul, Timaeus calls it “‘an
effrontery’ and ‘untrustworthy’ a groundless attempt to slander an entire
colony as a pack of rascals.”
To use such a list as proof that Paul condemned
homosexuality seems ill-advised. Harrill
also indicates that the author of I Timothy associates
arsenokoitai with “the vice of exploitative, immoral sexual
behavior with the vice of slave trading.”
Harrill concludes that the vice list used in
I Timothy matches that of Second Temple Jewish lists.
So, the structure of vice lists already
existed. This, however, does not show
that Paul did not intend to condemn homoromantic relationships.
In order to show
that Paul may not have been condemning homoromantic relationships, one needs to
also look at the two words in question,
malakovV and
ajrsenokoivthV. Without going into a great deal of detail,
malakovV
roughly indicates softness, and
ajrsenokoivthV roughly indicates a
man in a bed. There is very little
agreement among the various translations of the New Testament as to how best to
define the words. Elliot indicates that
one of the problems with translating the words to indicate homosexuality
“offers a classic case of eisegesis displacing sound exegesis, inadvertently
reading into the text what supposedly is to be elicited from a text.”
While
malakovV could be rich men,
it
“does not mean ‘homosexual,’ and it most often denotes some type of moral
wakness.”
One of the difficulties with
malakovV
and comments about effeminacy is that in conversations like the one Lycinus
describes, the man who is really interested in attracting women uses cosmetics
and is considered soft. When Juvenal
uses it, he uses it to describe the
cinaedus. So, it appears that the word does not
necessarily indicate passive sex between men.
The problem with
cinaedus is that Martial uses it to describe a man’s concubine who
also fathers a child with the man’s wife. But Juvenal uses it to describe men
who are in “reciprocal” sexual relationships with other men.
So,
malakovV seems strange for Paul to use if he means homosexual.
AjrsenokoivthV
is just as confusing. “We must remember
that Paul was working in a culture in which the great majority of people were
illiterate,”
which
could indeed be why a
jrsenokoivthV was not previously
used in writing. One should use caution
when trying to understand amalgamated words.
If we were to read a letter about cannibals who are “eaters of men,”
then read another letter about a woman who was a “man-eater,” one could easily
conclude that she was a cannibal.
However, “man-eater” when used in slang refers to a woman who is
aggressive and beautiful. Harrill goes
so far as to say, “the attempt to define a word by the etymology of its
component parts proves in the end linguistically illegitimate.”
Elliott points out that a
jrsenokoivthV “could
denote ‘females lying/sleeping (around) with males’ as well as ‘males lying’”
Therefore, Paul’s words in I Corinthians 6:9
and I Timothy 1:10 do not necessarily point to homoromantic couples.
It may also be
helpful to look at words which were used at the time of Paul’s writings that
would be equivalent to the modern terms for gay, lesbian, or transgender. A homoromantic woman would have been called
tribas, hetairistriai, fricatrix, birago,
parthenai, etc. Gay men have more names. A homosexual man or transgender may have been
called
eromenos, aitas, kleinos, erastes,
eispnelos, philetor, androgynos, kinaidos, concubinus, pathici, felatores,
irrumator, cinaedus, mollis, tener, frater, soror, amator, puer, pedicare
and
pedico (during the later Empire),
exoleti, draucus, galli, spintria, pullus,
pusio, delicates, tener, debilis, effeminatus, discinctus, morbous,
impudicitia, etc.
Additionally,
Paul’s comments in Romans 1:26-27 have typically been offered up as proof
positive that Scripture condemns homosexuality; however, this may not be the
case. Interestingly, the words used by
Charicles in his prayer to Aphrodite echo amazingly the words of Paul. He uses phrases like “remain male, as they
were born to be,” “sacred law of necessity,” “inborn nature,” and like Paul
includes women in his discussion when he says, “neither should the female grow
unnaturally masculine.” He also refers
to men who prefer women as following, “the laws of nature,” and those that
prefer members of the same gender (though here it is important to note that his
opponent is a pederast) as having, “transgressed the laws of nature.” Charicles
also denounces lesbianism even to the point of using “lesbianism” which Lycinus
hated to repeat and indicated it was rarely used.
Also, Origen may have had a good deal of
influence as to how people understood Paul’s comments. “Origen, the earliest commentator on Romans,
believes that Paul refers to natural law… and to Mosaic Law.”
Origen was a eunuch – a follower of
Valentinus.
So Moore calls him a famous transgender person in the early
church.
It would therefore seem to me that if Paul
intended to condemn homosexuals, Origen would likely have said so.
Paul may also be
referring to common cult practices which he likely abhorred. Taylor
says,
“The most famous instance [of cult
behaviors leading to a ban of the cult] is the persecution of the Italian cult
of Dionysus in 186 BCE, recorded in book 39 of Livy’s Roman history. Among the accusations leveled at the
participants was an orgy of homosexual activity among both sexes. The cult involved more than seven thousand
men and women, many of them plebeians; its leaders were of that class. The Roman state arrested and executed a
majority of the participants and virtually eradicated the cult (39.13-18).”
Another good
description of cultic practices which seem to match Paul’s comments in Romans
can be found in Martin.
So, it seems to me that in Romans 1, Paul is
discussing fertility cults.
Taylor offers further illumination
on this concept. She indicates that the
priests of certain fertility cults, “known as the Galli and Metagyrtia,
respectively – were self-castrated, transvestic, and – if we believe the
sources – pathically oriented.”
So, again, it seems that Paul is speaking of
cultic activities which lead to self-castration or specifically fertility
cults.
Oddly enough,
Miller claims that the ancients had no concept of homosexual attraction.
To support his understanding that Romans 1:26
doesn’t refer to female homosexuality, he points out that “classical authors
tended to compare the two forms of homosexuality with the two sides of
heterosexuality rather than with each other.”
So, Paul would not have been following the norm if he compares male
homosexuality with female homosexuality.
He concludes that Romans 1:26 is a reference to all “non-coital”
heterosexual sex.
This may mesh well with the Wisdom of Solomon
14:23-27 which sounds a great deal like Paul in Romans 1 with idolatry being
the “beginning cause and end of every evil.”
So, sometimes when an English translation seems clear, the meaning
behind the passage occasionally gets left behind.
Having discussed,
if not completely disproven, the passages attributed to Paul, there may be some
passages attributed to Jesus which may shed light on the developing attitude
towards same sex romance in the early Christian communities. For example, Jesus’ comments about a man
carrying water jar in Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10 would be out of place since
only women carry water jars.
Men carried water or wine skins.
However, in Matthew 26:18, the man is not
longer carrying a water jar.
Mark generally considered earlier. Luke and
Matt around the same time, however if Luke is earlier, this shows a change by
the end of first century leading away from acceptance or tolerance of
homosexuality. This may also be attested
to in the change of the centurion’s precious servant (Luke 7:2-10) into his
daughter (Matt 8:5-13). Possibly trying
to distance selves from other cults where homosexuality was not a problem or to
avoid being satirized by cults who did have issues with homosexuality. Jars are
only carried by women in Thomas and John. (John 4:28, Thomas logion 97)
Taylor
also gives some good evidence of “the existence of a subculture” which may
have been why there was a man carrying a water jar in Mark and Luke.
There may also be
other evidence of early acceptance of other gender variances by Christianity in
another passage attributed to Jesus.
When Jesus speaks of eunuchs who are born that way, made that way by
other men, and make themselves that way for the kingdom of heaven in Matthew
19:12, he may be referring to galli. If
he is explaining that galli are holy, such an indication would be supported by
Taylor who says, “The Galli, like their Indian counterparts [
hijras], benefited from an aura of
religious authority.” Also,
Taylor further says, “Werner
Krenkel presents evidence that a tax was levied on Galli as male
prostitutes.” She further presents
evidence that Roman authorities were likely concerned that such cults were
“seductive” to the citizenry.
Another indication that Jesus would likely
not have had issues with gender blurring is his comment, “when you make the
male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the
female not female … then you will enter [the kingdom]” (Gospel of Thomas logion
22).
So, it seems that
there is some indication that Jesus knew of and did not have problems with
homoromantic and transgender people.
Yet, there are more possible indications that the early Christians did
not have an issue with homoromantic people.
Leviticus is not used to condemn homoromantic folks.
Leviticus was used by Jewish people to condemn same-sex behaviors in men and
later women, but the early Christians did not use it. Also, the Epistle of Barnabas 10:6 condemns
pedophilia but not age appropriate same-sex contact.
So, even when specific sexual acts are
condemned, homoromantic couples of appropriate ages are not.
