BHP journal: Same-sex Intercourse as "Contrary to Nature" in Early Judaism

This was a really interesting and valuable chapter (chapter 2). What I continue to find crazy is that things Gagnon finds in support of disallowing modern same-sex relationships I have the exact opposite view of.

Let's jump in with...

Given the fact that actual instances of homosexual behavior among Jews of this period are not attested, the number of texts that speak directly to the issue of homosexual intercourse are sufficiently numerous and unanimous to ensure an accurate assessment of what Jews thought ... They help us in determining what Jesus and the authors of New Testament texts who are silent about the issue of homosexuality probably believed.

Alright, but Jesus would not be a transformational figure in human history and the New Testament would not have been written if Jesus and the New Testament authors believed what other Jews "probably believed."

And this touches on what was so mind-blowing to me:

However, it is also evident that in most (if not all) of these instances the author primarily had in mind the standard model for homosexual relationships in Greco-Roman culture; namely, pederasty.

Both Philo and Josephus, who provided Gagnon's main arguments, clearly had pederasty in view as they were discussing homosexuality, and they also had some clearly messed-up thinking about women which was integral to their thinking. His analysis was very helpful, because it helped me see that Paul certainly had whatever these writers had in mind when he referred to same-sex relationships in the New Testament, but it's clearly not what we see today.

Here the issue is curbing self-indulgent passions that do not lead to the stability and growth of the state but rather destabilize the family unit by turning men's affections away from their wives and from the procreation and nurture of children.

This makes sense, this feels consistent with an ancient view of society and the world. And I want to affirm that in my view, Jesus and Paul very well may have held a broad view of not affirming homosexual relationships wherever they were found. However, this cannot be separated from the form it was most prevalent in their society, and this does not translate to disaffirmation for modern Christians.

Since the obvious receptacle given by nature for the male penis was the female vagina, penetration of a male amounted to treating the male as if he were a female and thereby "emasculating" him - a blatant case of anatomical gender transgression.

Will he also address oral sex? But this is a helpful point, and along with the quote below, for me brings into perspective what Paul was possibly referring to in the "sin lists" and also what he meant by "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" ... and it's all about pederasty or power differential. But this isn't all that it's about. It also has to do with idolatry, human trafficking, and possibly other things.

Then, little by little, by accustoming those who had been born men to put up with feminine things, they equipped them with a female disease - an evil that is hard to fight against - not only feminizing their bodies with softness and disintegration but also bringing their work to completion by making their very souls more degenerate.

Can you believe this? It's shocking, and yet he concludes,

Yet when we rightly reject these anti-female elements, we do not, thereby, diffuse the whole of Philo's negative assessment of homosexual relationships.

No, I'm sorry, the "degenerate" view of women here is absolutely integral with the condemnation of ... let's call it what it is ... pederasty ... whereas the exploitative nature of the power differential in the relationship is not even mentioned. So, we're dealing with a really sick view of men, women and sexuality here.

Both Philo and Josephus describe a man's desire for sexual intercourse with other males as an insatiable overflow of lust beyond heterosexual intercourse.

He says we'll get into this more later on, and we better, because I feel like this informs Paul's approach in Romans, and it's absolutely relevant.

A rampant promiscuity along with a host of other addictive behaviors that often accompany it remains characteristic of many segments of homosexual male culture. This suggests male homosexual relationships are plagued both by the absence of a female partner to curb the excesses of male sexuality (prone as it is to visual stimulation and extremes in pluriform sexual behavior) and by an insatiable yearning for the completion of gender identification, which translate into inadequate self-control.

I still wonder if he's going to offer any research to back up his ridiculous assertions throughout the book so far of the homosexual community. And what on earth is this about "a female partner to curb the excesses of male sexuality" - again, would you like to offer anything biblical or scientific here, or is this just your own musing on human relationships?

Each of the two main arguments contains elements that contemporary assessments of sexuality would find unacceptable.

He's talking about the argument that the intent of sex must be procreation, and the status of women. He dismisses these apparently because "they contain elements that contemporary assessments of sexuality would find unacceptable." Case closed. That's enough for him. However, now clearly "contemporary assessments of sexuality" find disaffirmation of healthy same-sex relationships unacceptable. And that's not good enough for him.

Neither the male anal cavity (the orifice for expelling excrement) nor the mouth (the orifice for taking in food) are likely candidates for what God intended as a receptacle for the male penis.

Well, here we are. So he's claiming the bible advises against oral sex here - I guess? So why doesn't he write a book about oral sex? I'm sure heterosexual oral sex is far more common than homosexual oral or anal sex. Further, he doesn't mention the penis and vagina double as the organs for expelling urine, and the mouth is used for breathing and communication. Is the logic each organ/cavity can only have one use?

The exploitative aspects of same-sex intercourse were not cited by Jewish writers as a fundamental reason for it being "contrary to nature," except insofar as all same-sex intercourse was regarded as inherently exploitative. That same-sex intercourse customarily involved a mature man as the active partner and teenage boys as passive recipients is stated or clearly implied in most of the texts but is not central to the rejection of same-sex intercourse.

It is interesting that the inequality of the relationship, and the non-consensual nature of the relationship, is not cited as a reason for its condemnation, but if "most (if not all) of these instances" you cite involve pederasty, you don't just get to pretend it's not a factor. Simply because it was actually a factor, and it it should have been a factor behind the condemnation of it, along with the crazy ideas about women that were involved are evidence that ideas of sexuality and gender at the time were just really messed up.

The notion that first century Jews, such as Jesus and Paul, would have given general approval to a homosexual lifestyle if they had only been shown adequate examples of mutually caring and non-exploitative same-sex relationships is fantastic.

The notion that it's at all relevant what Jesus or Paul would have thought about non-exploitative same-sex relationships is fantastic. This is not the goal. They cannot be taken out of their culture and inserted into ours. The goal is to understand what we can about what Paul had in mind when he referred to same-sex relationships in scripture, and then, along with the rest of the teaching of the bible, understand if non-exploitative same-sex relationships are inappropriate for Christians today. (They're not.)

Jesus did not refer to same-sex relationships. In my mind that's all we need to know. But the next chapter is on this topic, so let's see what Gagnon has to say with an open mind.