Introduction
The argument that
Paul and other early Christians would not have known about loving, committed,
long-term homosexual relationships, unions, or even marriages is false. A myth has developed in contemporary ‘scholarship’
about what antiquity understood on these matters, perpetuated by scholars who
refuse to do the heavy lifting work of actual research in the primary sources
rather than just quote one another. It
is as though the argument has been hermetically sealed by those pushing the
revisionist agenda of same-sex unions: actual research would be highly
inconvenient were it to reveal the myth.
The mistaken
scholarship seems to have begun in the 1980s with Robin Scroggs, who argued
that
… pederasty was the only model [for
homosexuality] in existence in the world of [Paul’s] time.” And “at the risk of
seeming endlessly repetitive, I close with the observation that Paul thinks of
pederasty, and perhaps the more degraded forms of it, when he is attacking
homosexuality.[1]
This led to the
argument in the 1980s that Paul was not speaking about loving, mutual,
committed, adult unions or marriages.
Within a decade, Scroggs’ claim about what ancient society knew of
homosexuality—that pederasty was the only model—was overturned, but the
argument that Paul could not have had loving, committed unions in view has
persisted. It was recently a major
reason cited by Archbishop Barry Morgan of Wales for his approval of same-sex
unions.[2] Various alternatives to Scroggs’ focus on
pederasty emerged, such as that Paul was speaking of prostitution or temple
prostitution or sexual lust (loose sexual practices or passions out of
control), or something else. One related
assertion—that antiquity did not know about or understand sexual orientation[3] (which I have addressed elsewhere)—should
be noted.[4]
Not only do such alternative
interpretations of Paul fail to make sense of what he says, they also fail to investigate
ancient literary sources adequately—or even to engage them at all. The failure to interpret Paul in his literary
context has led to interpretations that favour this or that contemporary conclusion a scholar wishes to purport, but they are typically lacking
in scholarly research.
One line of enquiry
not adequately researched in the literature is the one studied here: the
presence of long-term, adult homosexual relationships in antiquity, even
same-sex unions and marriages. The quotations
offered here are from literature that happened to capture some story gaining
the attention of one writer or another in antiquity: we have no knowledge of
how many such examples existed. They are
sufficient, however, to take the wind out of any argument that early Christians
were not in a position to contemplate loving, long-term, committed same-sex
unions in their cultural context or that they would not have been aware of
same-sex marriages. Quite the
opposite. What we find is that awareness
of such relationships was likely at the same level of what the West is now
considering—without the fanfare of a media to keep it in our faces on a daily
basis.
What the Evidence Means
Before presenting the
evidence, a few brief points about what the evidence means for today’s
revisionist interpreters of the Church’s long-standing teaching on
homosexuality might be noted. First, the
data demonstrates that antiquity knew of other ‘models’ (to use Scroggs’ term)
of homosexuality in antiquity than pederasty for adult homosexual relationships. This is so whether the long-term, adult
homosexual union was loving or not.
Second, the data demonstrate that there were loving homosexual unions in antiquity. Third, the data demonstrates that antiquity
could speak of and knew of some homosexual marriages, whether loving or
unloving. Thus, the data shows that
early Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) opposition to homosexuality in
Gentile contexts would have been aware of same-sex unions and marriages. They condemned the relationships all the
same. The argument against homosexual
acts was against such acts whether as acts or in same-sex unions or marriages.
Failed Scholarship
All
this means that the perpetuated myth that Paul could not have intended to decry
homosexual marriage is a matter of failed scholarship. (Other failures are not the subject of discussion
here, such as adequate ministry training, commitment of clergy to orthodoxy, or
incompetent denominational leadership.) The
truth is that Paul handled the question differently: in terms of natural unions
as God intended for a male and female in marriage versus unnatural unions of
any sort. He did not base the legitimacy
of marriage on love—Jesus’ insistence on no divorce pressed the early Church to
consider marriage covenantally, not romantically—even if the marriage were to
an unbeliever. (To be sure, love was a
goal in marriage (e.g., Eph. 5.20-31), but it was not the basis for marriage or
divorce when things got rough.) But that
Paul could not have known of loving, committed, unnatural unions is a
contention against concrete evidence. (Readers
should note that additional texts on love between homosexuals is also relevant
but not discussed here as the focus is on adult homosexual unions.)
At
least Robin Scroggs attempted to do primary source research—those were early
days for revisionist interpreters, and we might perhaps forgive some failure on
his part to collect adequate evidence at that time, but not today.[5] Scroggs’ inclination as a New Testament scholar
was to study primary sources, and he is to be commended in this even if his
research was fatally inadequate. Many
scholars who have followed since, however, particularly theologians and
ethicists as opposed to Biblical scholars, appear to lack the basic training in
primary source research to earn the right to be heard on a matter of
interpreting Scripture in its context (a prime example would be Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality).[6]
However,
even Biblical scholars at times have relinquished their training in primary
source research to be sure that they are on the politically correct side of the
argument (a prime example would be Victor Paul Furnish—a capable Biblical
scholar who does no serious research on the subject but who has written on it
as a supporter of the revisionist view).[7] The result is that too many denominations in
the West have been dealing with arguments about homosexuality based on
inadequate and inept scholarship. One of
the key arguments for revisionists—that antiquity did not know loving,
committed, homosexual relationships—is an example of failed scholarship. Anyone making this argument should be
required to state what actual primary source research he or she has done and
then should be asked to engage the evidence presented here.
Long-term, Sometimes Loving,
Adult Homosexual Unions or Marriages in Antiquity
Aristotle, Politics 2.96-97
[1274a]. Philolaus “was the friend and lover of Diocles,
an Olympic victor who left Corinth in disgust at his mother Halcyone’s incestuous
passion for himself, and he accompanied Diocles to Thebes, where they lived and
died together. Their tombs are still
shown today: they stand in full view of one another, but one of them can be
seen from the soil of Corinth, and the other cannot….”[8]
Xenophon
(c. 430-354 BC), The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.12
I think I
ought to say something about intimacy
with boys, since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other
Greek states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together, like married people; elsewhere, among
the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the
other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys.[9]
Cicero, Philippics
2.44-45: You [Antonius—Mark Antony] assumed the manly gown,
which you soon made a womanly one: at first a public prostitute, with a regular
price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped
in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a
matron’s robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock.[10]
Suetonius, Nero 28:
Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl through castration, he [Emperor
Nero] went through a wedding ceremony with him—dowry, bridal veil and all—which
the whole Court attended; then brought him home and treated him as a wife. He dresses Sporus in the fine clothes
normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every
Greek assize and fair, but actually through the streets of Images at Rome, kissing
him amorously now and then…. 29. Nero practiced every kind of
obscenity, and after defiling almost every part of his body finally invented a
novel game: he was released from a cage dressed in the skins of wild animals,
and attacked the private parts of men and women who stood bound to stakes.
After working up sufficient excitement by this means, he was dispatched - shall
we say? - by his freedman Doryphorus. Doryphorus now married him - just as he
himself had married Sporus - and on the wedding night he imitated the screams
and moans of a girl being deflowered. According to my informants he was
convinced that nobody could remain chaste or pure in any part of his body, but
that most people concealed their secret vices; hence, if anyone confessed to
obscene practices, Nero forgave him all his other crimes.[11]
Martial, Epigrams 1.24:
Decianus, you see that fellow there with the rough hair, whose beetling brow
frightens even you, who talks of Curii and Camilli, freedom’s champions? Don’t
believe his looks. He took a husband yesterday.[12]
Martial Epigrams 12.42: Bearded Callistratus married rugged
Afer in the usual form in which a virgin marries a husband. The torches shone in front, the wedding veil
covered his face, and Thalassus, you did not lack your words. Even the dowry was declared. Are you still not satisfied, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?
Martial, Epigrams 12.95 [Warning against same-sex acts with
boys leading to same-sex marriage]: Read, Istantius Rufus, the ultra-pathic
little books of Mussetius, which vie with the little books of Sybaris [i.e.,
‘how to’ books for same-sex intercourse], pages tinged with prurient wit
[pederasty]. But have your girl with you, lest you make lustful hands sing your
wedding song and become a husband without a woman.
Juvenal, Satire II,
lines 117-140: Gracchus gave a dowry of
four hundred thousand sesterces to a trumpeter—or maybe he performed on a horn
that was straight. The marriage contract has been witnessed, felicitations
offered, a huge company invited to the feast, and the new bride reclines in her
husband’s lap. O nobles! Is it a censor or a soothsayer that we need? Would you
be more horrified, would you think it more monstrous still, if a woman gave
birth to a calf or a cow to a lamb? He’s wearing the bride’s flounces, long
dress, and veil—the man who carried the sacred objects swaying from the mystic
thong and who sweated under the weight of the sacred shields. O father of Rome,
where has it come from, this appalling outrage that afflicts the shepherds of
Latium? Where has it come from, this itch that taints your descendants,
Gradivus? Look: a man
illustrious in family and fortune is handed over in marriage to another man—and
you’re not shaking your helmet, or striking the ground with your spear, or
complaining to your father? Off with you, then—withdraw from the acres of the
stern Campus which you don’t care about. “Tomorrow at sunrise I have a ceremony to
attend in the valley of Quirinus.” “What’s the
occasion?” “Oh, just a friend of mine marrying a man, and he’s invited a few
guests.” If we are allowed to live just a little longer, those marriages will
take place, they’ll take place openly, they’ll even want to be reported in the
news. Meanwhile, the fact that they can’t give birth and use their babies to
hang on to their husbands is a huge torment which these brides cannot escape.
But it’s better that nature grants their minds no power over their bodies: they
die infertile, and swollen Lyde with her secret medicine box is no use to them,
no more than holding out their palms to running Lupercus. Yet even this outrage is surpassed by
Gracchus, wearing a tunic and with a trident in his hand, who as a gladiator
traversed the arena as he ran away, a man of nobler birth than the Capitolini
and Marcelli, than the descendants of Catulus and Paulus, than the Fabii, than
all the spectators in the front row, even if you include the very man who
staged that net-throwing show..[13]
Ptolemy,
Tetrabiblos, III.14.171-172:
But if likewise Mars [planet/god of war] or Venus [planet/god of love] as well,
either one of them or both, is made masculine, the males become addicted to natural
[kata physin] sexual intercourse, and are adulterous, insatiate, and
ready on every occasion for base and lawless acts of sexual passion, while the
females are lustful for unnatural congresses [para physin], cast
inviting glances of the eye, and are what we call tribades; for they
deal with females and perform the functions of males [andrōn erga].
If Venus alone is constituted in a masculine manner, they do these things
secretly and not openly. But if Mars likewise is so constituted, without
reserve, so that sometimes they even designate the women with whom they are
on such terms as their lawful “wives.”[14]
Lucian, Vera Historia 1.22 [This fictional story describes a
voyage to the moon where men marry men]: In the interval, while I was living on
the moon, I observed some strange and wonderful things that I wish to speak of.
In the first place there is the fact that they are not born of women but of
men: they marry men and do not even know the word woman at all! Up to the age
of twenty-five each is a wife, and thereafter a husband. They carry their
children in the calf of the leg instead of the belly.[15]
Lucian, Dialogues of
the Courtesans, 5.1-4: [In this passage, Megilla, a
lesbian, lives as a male (short hair, with a wig in public to appear as a
woman) and has Demonassa as her wife.]
Iamblichos, Babyloniaka
(lost
work, 2nd c. AD): [This novel depicted Berenike and Mesopotamia as a
married, female couple. We lack the
original source. As told by Photios (Bibliothēkē
94.77a-b), the text says that Berenike ‘came with’ (sunegineto) and
‘made marriage of’ someone named ‘Mesopotamia’.
One might question whether the evidence supports the interpretation that
this was a lesbian marriage or merely that the two sponsored wedding
festivities.]
Aelius Lampridius, Elagabalus
10.5: With
this man [Zoticus,] Elagabalus [Elagabalus Antoninus, or Varus, a Roman
emperor, early 3rd c.] went through a nuptial ceremony and
consummated a marriage, even having a bridal-matron and exclaiming, "Go to
work, Cook" — and this at a time when Zoticus was ill. 6 After
that he would ask philosophers and even men of the greatest dignity whether
they, in their youth, had ever experienced what he was experiencing, — all
without the slightest shame. 7 For indeed he never refrained
from filthy conversation and would make indecent signs with his fingers and
would show no regard for decency even in public gatherings or in the hearing of
the people.[16]
[Emperor Elagabalus
insisted that courtiers also marry other men if they wanted advancement (Lamparidius
10-11).]
Plutarch, Moralia:
Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) 761d: [Two men, Epaminondas and
Caphisodoros were lovers and buried together as a married couple]: Epaminondas,
in fact, loved two young men, Asopichus and Caphisodorus. The latter died with
him at Mantineia and is buried close to him….[17]
Judaism and Early
Christianity
We
might add a few additional texts from Judaism and early Christianity to note
the presence of loving, committed, homosexual unions and marriages in
antiquity.
Sifra Ahare 9:8
[before
AD 220; Commenting on Leviticus 18.3—the chapter that mentions male
homosexuality—Lev. 18.22: The commentary understands Leviticus to speak of men
marrying men and women marrying women.].
Genesis
Rabbah 26.6
and Leviticus Rabbah 23.9: [both
texts refer to marriage between males].
bHullin
92b
[5th/6th c. AD]: [This text prohibit drawing up marriage
contracts between males].
Theodotian Code 9.7.3 (16
December, 432): [Now in the Christian era of the Roman Empire, a law is passed
forbidding a man marrying another man as though he were a woman]: When a man
“marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he
wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is not profitable to
know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not
found? We order the statutes to arise,
the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who
are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite
punishment.’[18]
[Theodotian Code 9.7.6
calls for burning to death men practicing homosexual sex. 6 August, 399.]
Conclusion
The evidence speaks for
itself: antiquity at the time of Paul—well before and afterwards—knew examples
of same-sex unions of adults that were committed and long-term and sometimes
loving. Claims by scholars doing
inadequate research that antiquity knew no such thing are just that—claims
without consideration of the evidence.
Thus, when Jews and Christians spoke against homosexuality in antiquity,
it cannot be argued that they did so without awareness of loving, committed,
same-sex unions or marriages.
For early Christians, the
issue of homosexuality was not decided on the basis of whether relationships
were loving, even if marriage ideally expressed love. They were not legitimated on the basis of
commitment, even if marriage meant commitment.
The understanding of sexuality and marriage was based on what Scripture said: marriage is the ‘one
flesh’ union of a man and a woman.
Were someone to argue in the 1st century at a Christian
church that homosexuality should be permitted if in a loving, committed marital
union, the response would have first been that this was contrary to
Scripture. The debate over homosexuality
in our day is not just about sexuality and marriage: it is ultimately about the
authority of Scripture in the Church’s theology and practice and its use in
pastoral teaching.
One can, of course, argue
from the notion of ‘loving, committed unions’ for other things than homosexual
marriage. Certainly incestuous marriage
could be affirmed on this basis. One
might make a case for open marriages—sex among friends—on this basis as well
(unless some concern for marriage per se
is added). Be that as it may, the
argument in favour of homosexual unions or marriages based on this criterion
cannot appeal to the alleged irrelevance of Biblical texts on the grounds that
the authors supposedly did not know of loving, committed homosexual unions and
marriages in their day. The evidence
that these were present in antiquity is clear, and Paul, the preeminent
traveller throughout the Roman Empire, would not have been unaware of this.
[1] Robin
Scroggs, The New Testament and
Homosexuality (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1984), P. 139.
If it did not begin with him, he certainly was an early player
misleading many at the time.
[2] See
Barry Morgan, Presidential Address of the Archbishop of Wales to the
Governing Body meeting at the University of Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, on
14 Sept 2016. Online: http://www.anglican.ink/article/archbishop-wales-declares-scriptural-support-same-sex-marriage
(accessed 15 September, 2016). I
have written a response to Morgan: Rollin G. Grams, ‘Issues Facing Missions Today 59:
Exercises in Simple Logic: A Response to the Archbishop of Wales’ Defense of
Same-Sex Relationships,’ www.bibleandmission.blogspot.com (15
September, 2016); online at http://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/09/issues-facing-missions-today-55.html.
[3] E.g., Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case
in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014).
[4] See Rollin G. Grams, ‘Christian
Mission to the West: Sexual Orientation in Antiquity and Paul,’ bibleandmission.blogspot.com (21
November, 2016); online at http://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/11/christian-mission-to-west-sexual.html. Also see , S. Donald Fortson, III and Rollin
G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The
Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville,
TN: B&H Academic, 2016), ch. 15 (“‘Soft Men and “Homosexuals” in 1 Corinthians
6:9’) and ch. 16 (‘Homosexual Orientation in Antiquity and in Paul’s Writings’).
[5] Scholars were well situated for
primary source research in the 1980s, so there really is no excuse for failed
research at the end of the day. Yet
doing primary source research in an era of electronic resources is far easier
than then.
[6] Jack Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode
the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
2006). Search for serious primary source research in this
work. Without it, Rogers does not
explode myths on the subject, he creates or perpetuates them. A recent example of a
theologian affirming the revisionist interpretation with claims of ‘what the
Biblical texts say’ is Nicholas Wolterstorff.
His public lecture on the subject shows virtually no awareness of
primary source scholarship, just dependence on other contemporary writers. He seems to think that persuasion can be
based more on the basis of his own authority as a theologian—indeed, one at a
prestigious university—but as to scholarship, the lecture is woefully
inadequate. (Of course, university
audiences these days, with their need for ‘safe spaces’ and cry-ins, tend to
evaluate the persuasiveness of lectures on the basis of authorities saying the politically correct things and the emotional satisfaction they receive
rather than the adequacy of proofs for a thesis. Wolterstorff was, no doubt, persuasive to a
number of persons in his audience.) See:
Nicholas Wolterstorff,
‘All One Body.’ Online lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiD_Lfy2beo&feature=youtu.be
(accessed: October 13, 2016).
[7] Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected
Issues, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1985).
[8] Aristotle, Politics, trans. Ernest Barker, revised R. F. Stalley (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995).
[9] Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaimonians, trans. E. C. Marchant, G. W.
Bowersock (Loeb Classical Library 183; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1925. The Lacedaimonians were a Spartan tribe and, according to Xenophon, opposed to pederasty. Boeotia is in central Greece, and the Eleians were in northern Greece, i.e., Thessaly. The marriage-like arrangement would have been
a ‘committed’ relationship and perhaps ‘loving’, but later heterosexual
marriage followed the arrangement.
[10] Cicero, Philippics (Fragments), trans. John T. Ramsey (Loeb Classical
Library 507; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010).
[11] Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (Penguin, 1965). One gets the sense from this text that Sporus
was simply brutally abused but that Doryphorus was complicit. Nevertheless, the point to take away is that antiquity
discussed same-sex marriage, whether loving or not—and in this case, probably both. The emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Galba,
Hadrian, and Elagabalus (who also married his lover, see below) all had male
lovers.
[12] Martial, Epigrams, trans. D. R.
Shackleton Bailey (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1993).
[13]
Juvenal, Satires, trans. Susanna
Morton Braund (Loeb Classical Library 91; Cambridge: Harvard university Press,
2004.
[14] Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, trans. F. E. Robbins (Loeb Classical Library 435;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940).
[15] See Lucian, A True Story, The Works of Lucian, trans. A. M. Harmon (Loeb Classical Library 14; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1913).
[16] Aelius Lampridius, Historia Augusta 17. Elagabalus, trans. David Magie (Loeb
Classical Library 140; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924.
[17] Plutarch, Moralia. Dialogue on Love,
trans. W. C. Helmbold (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1961). This whole section is
about adult ,male, homosexual lovers.
[18]
Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian
Constitutions (Union, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 2001), p. 232.