So, what was the
Roman attitude towards homosexuality?
That is a complicated question with varying answers. Fone concludes that homosexuality was only
looked down upon when one partner in a male relationship chose to only to take
the passive role or acted effeminately.[1] While, this may be true to an extent, it
seems to me that in a time when people were insecure because of changes within
the Empire, including a decreasing population within Rome herself, the leaders of the Empire
desired to control the population and see it increase. This explains at least one aspect of how the
attitudes of the early Christian church were formed.
Another important
aspect of how these attitudes were formed comes from the Jewish attitudes. Given the various personalities within the
Hebrew Bible who seemed not to be completely heterosexual (Jonathan, David,
Daniel, etc.) and the apparent changing attitudes within religious hierarchy
(II Isaiah allowing eunuchs back into the congregation), it would seem that in
the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, the Jewish people were at
least tolerant of some diversity. However,
by the 1st century BCE, certain Jewish people are following the
ascetic attitudes.
For instance,
Philo of Alexandria who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, appeared to have problems
with homosexual relationships. Szesnat
indicates that Philo wrote mostly about slave boys or adolescents in a passive
sexual role who turn into some sort of a combination of male and female, or are
reduced to the status of a girl. He also
says that the lovers of such males waste away with disease and go sterile.[2] Philo also made a lot of connections to the
story of Sodom
and apparently felt that the reason for its destruction was male-male sex[3],
even though that is neither what the Bible indicates nor what the Rabbis
taught.[4] He further indicated that because Sodomites
were so caught up in this type of sex, those males also became sterile. The fact that Cantarella translates him as
saying, “men mounted males” may indicate that he was talking about pederasty as
Szsnat indicates. She goes on to quote
him as saying, “Pederasty or adultery or rape of a young person, even of a
female, for I need not mention the case of a male …,” which seems to indicate
that he is not speaking of homoromantic love between two non-minors of the same
sex.[5] To show how this may have had less to do with
homophobia and more to do with asceticism, Philo also rejected heterosexual
intercourse with barren women because it was non-reproductive.[6] So, Philo, who was not a spiritual leader,
but rather a philosopher, may have been following the stoics and other ascetics
in the formation of his attitudes.
Another important
individual within Judaism to consider as reflecting the attitudes of Jews of
his time is Josephus Flavius who lived from 37 CE to 100 CE. He insisted that the only sexual relation
allowed by Torah was procreative between husband and wife. He was largely ignored by the Jewish
community; however, Christians copied his works frequently.[7] Like Philo, he also felt Sodom was destroyed due to homosexual
violence.[8]
So, what led to
the attitudes of Philo and Josephus?
There may be some indication that the specific objection that Josephus
and Philo had was one of pederasty in that The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs indicates in The Testament of Levi that “Priests will be idolaters, adulterers,
moneygrubbers, lascivious and violators of children (paidophthoroi)” (Testament of
Levi 17:11) Cantarella uses this as
an explanation of why Jews hated homosexuality.[9] By the time of the Talmud, the Rabbis were
trying to explain why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are worded the way they are and
determined that these the first passage condemned only the insertive partner in
male-male relations. They looked to
Deuteronomy (evidently verses 22:5, 23:17-18) to explain why the receptive
partner was also condemned.[10] Also, it is often said that “Israelites are
not suspected of either sodomy or bestiality” (Talmud, Kiddushin 82a). Yet,
Rabbi Yehudah felt it necessary to include a rule in the Mishnah saying that “two unmarried men” should not “[sleep] under a
single blanket.”[11] If there were no chance that Israeli men
could be attracted to each other, why the law?
As for attitudes
towards female homoromantic relationships, there appears to be a change. For instance, Talmudic Rabbis question
whether or not Lesbianism is harlotry.
Satlow explains, “According to the Tosefta,
‘If a woman ‘rubs’ with her minor son, and he penetrates her, the School of Shammai School
of Shammai , while the School of Hillel
So, it appears
that the Rabbis, in addition to Jewish philosophers, were becoming more and
more ascetic. Fone indicates that Jewish
writers in this period were becoming so ascetic that they rewrote the 10
commandments to include a commandment against sex between husband and wife that
was not intended to lead to begetting children and against same gendered sex.[14] So, this explains a general shift in
attitudes towards homoromantic relationships as well as transgendered
relationships. However, one should also
consider whether or not a shift occurred within the Christian community.
[1] Fone pg
60
[2] Szesnat
Gay histories and cultures pg 685
[3] Fone pg
89
[4] Bullough
pg 182
[5]Cantarella
pg 199-200
[6] Miller
pg 10
[7] Szesnat
in Gay Histories and Cultures pg 502
[8]
Cantarella pg 200
[9] Cantarella
pg 201
[10]
Cantarella pg 198
[11] Satlow
pg 18-19
[12] Satlow
pg 15-16
[13] Satlow
pg 15-16, Downing in Lesbian History and Culture pg 49
[14] Fone pg 87
No comments:
Post a Comment