Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Paul and sexuality

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ayla Lepine" <arlepine AT uvic.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Paul and sexuality
  • Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:00:37 -0700


A quick note on language:
More and more, my own view is that labels are for food, not people. However,
we need a vocabulary to talk about sexuality and be understood. Our concept
of homosexuality, possibly as a subculture/lifestyle/unique brand of
sin/oppressed minority/choice/aspect of whole human sexual experience/a
label describing the multiplicity of 2 sexes but infinite genders/something
one is born with (whew!), is *totally* different from what the 1st century
would have understood. Applying the knowledge and diverse methodology for
interpretation that is born out of post-Stonewall innovation should be done
self-consciously, and often isn't.

That said,...
P L Stepp says:
> Two points: first, Plato's Symposium mentions and implies prominently the
> existence of "committed relationships between people of the same gender."
>
>
> Second, Philo (I don't have the reference here, but I can get it) has a
> rather nuanced discussion of homosexuality and nature, and--as I
> recall--he uses FUSIS in much the same way that we moderns would discuss
> individual sexual orientation.
>
> These two texts undercut the old Furnish argument (to wit, that Paul's
> comments were limited to pederasty because that was the only type of
> homosexual relationship widely known in the ancient Mediterranean world.)
>
>
The refs to Plato and Philo are excellent ones to invoke here- hadn't
thought of that! However, I have to wonder how likely it is that Paul would
have read these cover to cover and been able to refer to them freely.
Furthermore, it's unlikely judging from the passage in Romans that loving,
committed same-sex relationships were even on his mind, and simply may not
been a part of Paul's observation or experience. It seems far more likely
that Paul's notions of same-sex behaviour would have been informed by the
Pagan temple practices, pederastic relationships between slave boys and
older men, and the Torah.

Another suggestion is that in Romans, Paul is not condemning natural
homosexual experience, but those who are of a heterosexual orientation who
engage in homosexual sex.Then the passage in Romans is not a condemnation of
homosexual behaviour. Instead, it disapproves of sexual behaviour that is
against a person's basic nature (ie- homosexual practice by people whose
orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual
behaviour by queer men and women, as it would be equally against their
nature.

If we are to delve further into Paul and sexuality, 1Cor 6:9 should also be
a part of this discussion. If the phrase "homosexual offenders" were to be
replaced by "heterosexual offenders," it's unlikely that we would read it as
a general condemnation of heterosexuality, but instead as a specific attack
on those who are of a heterosexual orientation who engage in specific sexual
offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviours as "malakoi" and
"arsenokoitai." Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as
"homosexual," this is probably not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey.
If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste," the standard
term at the time for what we might term gay men. Paul then probably meant
something different from male-male adult sex.
In the early Christian church, "malakoi," meaning soft/fine was interpreted
by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without
courage or stability.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means
"beds." The Septuagint translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24,
15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai," in reference to male temple prostitutes -
people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Further, the Sibylline
Oracles (chapter 2 or thereabouts?) uses "arsenokotai" to mean some kind of
economic exploitation by means of *any* kind of sex.

Then it gets better. Luther etc in the 16th c. thought that "arsenokoitai"
referred to masturbators. While that interpretation was practically
universally accepted then, by the 20th century, masturbation had become a
more generally accepted behaviour. As a result, new translations abandoned
references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. 100%
human vs. 100% divine indeed. We have a lot of work to do.

The Western world is still not yet ready to acknowledge its heterosexism to
the point that discussion of Pauline texts doesn't raise some kind of
passionate ire now and again in people rooted in our own time. I'm not
suggesting that we forget our contemporary context to engage in a distanced
dialogue. Instead, I'm imploring that we take it into account, an
intellectual act that some fundamentalist interpreters are unable or
unwilling to do.

Kind regards and many thanks to those who contribute their thoughts on C-P,



Ayla Lepine
------
Ayla Lepine
(arlepine AT uvic.ca)
Contract Editor, B.C. Heritage Branch
Researcher, DoCoMoMo B.C.
Hon. Undergraduate, UVic History in Art





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page