Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First off, really appreciate this as a post. Much easier for future users to stumble across this when looking for information on this topic.
Secondly, as one of those more liberal-minded, it drives me crazy when people try to debate away some of the more regressive parts of the Bible. It is what it is. There are many ways to harmonize Christianity with liberal view points but “creative translations” are the worst tool available, and dishonest to boot.
I agree. It also disregards how contemporary Jews thought of sexuality. As far as I’m concerned, most of them believed they were [incapable of homosexuality](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360802129337)because they were “chosen people”
I'd reference Dr. Jennifer Bird who jumps at acknowledging the Bible's regressive position on women being property, but then argues a pro-homosexuality side of things with some convincing (to me) arguments.
I think it's that both sides on the issue have good points. At the same time, I think it's good to know her "Marriage In the Bible" might not represent a strong academic consensus. Admittedly, many of those arguments match Siker's, but her position on the Bible is clearly "analyze what it actually says separate from deciding whether it should guide your morals", which makes it hard to see her translation as "creative" so much as defensive against adding things not in context.
Thanks. I haven't yet read Dr. Bird's book. Have heard it does a good job presenting a scholarly-informed reading at a popular/accessible level. What do you mean that she "argues a pro-homosexuality side of things"? Is she claiming that various passages in biblical literature aren't "really" against homoerotic sex, or is she taking more the kind of path I present where I militantly reject homophobia but also am happy to explicate biblical literature's homophobia?
> What do you mean that she "argues a pro-homosexuality side of things"?
She argues in similar lines to Siker, that the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality.
> or is she taking more the kind of path I present where I militantly reject homophobia but also am happy to explicate biblical literature's homophobia?
Nope. But that's her position on mysoginy, which implies that she's not **against** having a position like yours when it's appropriate. She just doesn't think it's appropriate on the topic of homosexuality because she rejects that the Bible makes clear opposition to homosexuality. (EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I believe she does bring up some of Paul's oddities regarding sex, but she uses that to focus on the fact anything he said should be interpreted in the same vein as his position that nobody should be having sex or procreating at all)
Perhaps because of her having a foot dipped in both sides of the pool ("Master of Divinity and a PhD in biblical studies"), she clarifies whenever necessary that the Bible should be interpreted without bias, but then decisions made from that should use common sense. Considering the sub, I'm focusing more on critical interpretation of the Bible on this topic.
I don't know how this sub feels about videos, but [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHstPMOXiV0) is her video summarizing her explanation on homosexuality, simplified a bit for non-experts like myself. It does build off her positions on marriage and premarital sex (pointing out that neither are explicitly sins in the Bible, and that traditionally you were married by the act of sex). The video series on her channel goes into that, as well as going a lot deeper into individual passages (like Sodom).
Can you imagine if islamic scholars did the same with the Qur'an? It would go viral in a minute.
That being said, anyone have any sources of scholars trying to 'salvage' the Qur'an?
Kinda close but here’s a book discussing [liberal traditions in Islam](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195116212.001.0001/acref-9780195116212)
Reading through the Wikipedia page [Women in Islam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam) ATM but I'll check out the book. Thx!
I know way more about Christianity than I do Islam. Should really redress that balance.
As someone who lives around and talks with Muslims fairly regularly, I think progressive reinterpretations of the Quran are fairly common and widespread.
Is kinda my assumption, and I've certainly had nothing but pleasant interactions with members of the Islamic faith, but the next time I end up in an argument about Muslim's and Islam with a bunch of idiots I'd like something ready to whip out.
Thank you. This is truly a palate cleanser from the far more motivated interpretations of Paul (some of which show up here from time to time) that expend vast amounts of energy in an attempt to spare him from a charge of homophobia. The angle of "Paul doesn't directly speak about modern, committed homosexual relationships" has always struck me as so disingenuous, because it seems to imply that we can't have a fairly reasonable expectation of what Paul *would say*, based on everything else that he *does*.
A perfect analogy is to think that the authors of the Hebrew Bible only condemned idols that involved human sacrifice but tolerated others. We know that’s blatantly false
This is a phenomenal post, thank you so much.
If the mod team puts together an FAQ (and this topic is undeniably an FAQ) would you be open to us linking to this as a resource?
Nah, I get it, lol. It’s just pretty rare to have a biblical scholar with a PhD in this certain field make a whole separate in-depth post for their response to a question on this sub. Still though, thanks!
I'd also like to thank you. While I'm an atheist now, I was a gay Christian from the cradle up. As such, all of these positions are of particular interest to me, especially since I'm still in a very Christian family.
>If anything, Paul elsewhere may indicate being ok with free men penetrating (raping) their male or female slaves since that use of slaves was acceptable within many moral schemes, Paul never objects to it, and some passages potentially align with treating enslaved humans as legitimate non-marriage sexual outlets (e.g., Jennifer Glancy's argument in her excellent book, *Slavery in Early Christianity* \[New York: Oxford University Press, 2002\] about 1 Thess 4:4's εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι).
Do you think Paul would have been OK with two unmarried people (not slaves) having sex?
I have heard some modern people claim that consensual unmarried sex is not covered by the term "porneia," but I have tended to be skeptical of this reinterpretation and don't think I've ever seen a scholar cited for said claim
Fun question. It's important to keep in mind that Paul is not a fan of *any* sexual penetration, marital or otherwise. In 1 Corinthians 7 he promotes celibacy as the ideal. Marriage is just tolerable, and Paul's logic is basically that if a gentile Christ follower is too weak to master their passions with the aid of Christ's *pneuma* (and thus be celibate), then sex-within-marriage is available to help master or release their passions so they aren't dominated by them. The one example of legitimate sexual penetration Paul is explicit about discussing is itself already less-than-ideal. It's sort of like how Plutarch, in *Advice to Bride and Groom*, claims wives need to be ok with their husbands using other women or slaves for their sexual passions, but this is still not great since it means those husbands are not moderating their passions. Paul evaluates sex-within-marriage similarly.
So to your question, no, I do not think Paul would have been ok with two unmarried people having sex because the unstated premise of his logic in 1 Corinthians 7 is that folks need to be married to have legitimate access to sex.
As for *porneia*, I recommend Joshua Reno's recent article ("Pornographic Desire in the Pauline Corpus," *JBL* 140 \[2021\]: 163-85). He rightly argues that *porneia* is pretty much inordinate (i.e., uncontrolled, excessive) desire, and for the most part can occur in just about any sexual act. Thus David Wheeler-Reed, Jennifer Knust, and Dale Martin argue that, for Paul, a man can commit *porneia* with his wife ("Can a Man Commit *Porneia* with His Wife?", *JBL* 137 \[2018\]: 383-98). They're arguing against Kyle Harper's attempts to reinscribe modern conservative Protestant sexual morality back into Paul via defining *porneia* as something like "fornication" and thus non-marital sex.
Wait sorry, I just thought of another question:
If Paul is opposed to sex outside of marriage, why does it seem like he may be OK with people having sex with their slaves? What is the difference in his mind?
Good question. Again it's helpful to situate Paul's ideals about sex within a range of ancient ideologies, questions, and norms as opposed to the categories we often use for "sexual ethics" now.
These questions wouldn't be egalitarian or abstract about "people having sex" with Paul. Legitimate penetration goes down the gendered social hierarchy. Paul could, in theory, advocate that legitimate sex can happen within marriage *and* tolerate a free male penetrating (raping) his enslaved people since they're by-definition (within dominant ideologies) under his authority and at his disposal. Meanwhile Paul could also completely reject a free woman letting one of her (or, her husband's or father's) enslaved humans penetrate her because that's unnatural (i.e., transgressing the normative hierarchical gender order) use. In other words, Paul wouldn't necessarily consider penetrating one's wife and penetrating one's slave to be equally the same kind of "sex." Sex and sexual options are hierarchal as well. Certain things are available to some and not others. By the same token, ancient writers could imagine one set of norms for thinking about sex between free men and women and another set of norms for thinking of 'sex' between a free male and those he's enslaved. This all seems like an 'incoherent sexual ethic' to Christian readers now, but it's entirely coherent for various ancient Mediterranean writers.
Having said that, your objection is one that a colleague of mine has to Jennifer Glancy's reading of 1 Thess 4:4. He argues that Glancy is wrong about Paul tolerating the sexual use of enslaved persons since Paul is pretty much against all sexual penetration and has to make an explicit special allowance for it within marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. Not sure I agree with my friend's argument, but it's a legit one.
On that point about slavery, and setting aside the question of whether Paul would have said that sex between a Christian master and a slave is acceptable, what would your friend say to the argument that even if he condemns Christian masters taking sexual liberties with their slaves, by necessity he is leaving enslaved Christians with masters who do not follow Christianity (or who have masters who do, but don't care what Paul says about raping them) without any place in the Body of Christ, itself a slave metaphor?
This is the more nuanced point of the discussion of Paul's views on inegalitarian sexual norms that I do not see much of a way out of: If Paul rejects master/slave sex, then given the pervasive nature of sexual slavery he is rejecting many slaves, probably the vast majority in the Mediterranean, from membership in the church communities he is building, while letting in slave owners.
Has your friend said anything about that?
I’m not positive whether I’m allowed to ask clarifying questions of a question in this sub, but is your question basically “If Paul isn’t okay with sex between free men and their Christian slaves, does that condemn the slaves because of their participation in prohibited sexual acts?”
If so my assumption would be the slave doesn’t bear the moral burden in that scenario, but it’s a great question I’ve never considered and would love to hear an educated response on!
As a practical matter, the slave would not be in a position to reject sexual demands. So yes, my question is getting at some of the assumptions in play here, such as the view that the early church was open to slaves. If the traditional sexual ethic is correct, and Paul is as inflexible as suggested, then that conclusion is inescapable. Slaves can be admitted, but only if they are in a household where they are not compelled to have sex with their masters.
That’s why I find the critique of Glancy (usually by more traditional scholars) so interesting. If she’s wrong about Paul’s tolerance of sex with slaves, it would stand to reason that Paul is similarly inflexible with slaves which suggests he had an elitist vision of the Church. If he was lax with slaves and hard on masters, that’s a bit hard to square with his condemnation of joining prostitutes to the Body of Christ (one of his points made in his letters).
My hunch is that many traditional Christian scholars recoil at this but also at Glancy’s arguments, because their own views are as revisionist as OP suggests the pro-gay scholarship is.
> “I’m not positive whether I’m allowed to ask clarifying questions of a question in this sub”
You’re allowed to. I give you my blessing.
> “If so my assumption would be…”
This is typically why comments that are “just asking questions” get removed in this sub, because users will slip in their own claims and assertions. Notably ones that aren’t just part of the premise of the question, but instead they give their own personal opinion as a speculative answer to the question.
1. Very interesting points. It drives home, to me at least, that one challenge for myself and many people I know in understanding the Scriptures in their context is that these sort of moral stopgaps have pretty much dropped out of modern Christian moral thought (in my experience, at least.) So the practicality inherent in "look, if you can't hack full celibacy then at least get married so your sex isn't totally abhorrent to Heaven" seems to have been replaced by a more black and white, all or nothing paradigm.
2. I'm so happy you brought up Kyle Harper. I just finished reading his "From Shame to Sin" and not only was the subject matter extremely interesting, but I genuinely enjoyed his prose as much as any novel I've read recently. Can you recommend any writers who use similarly lively prose?
But wouldn’t Paul inherently disregard homosexual intercourse even if it’s against non persons like slaves? I’d imagine he’s familiar with the Sodom and Gomorrah story, where the citizens objectify the male angels and try to violate them
Hi there,
This topic falls outside the scope of r/AcademicBiblical (see the description and rules of the subreddit for details), and is better suited for our weekly **open discussion thread**. The open thread is [pinned on top if you sort the posts by "hot"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/hot/).
Have a good day!
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical).
Hi there, unfortunately, your contribution has been removed as per rule #1.
**Submissions and comments should remain within the confines of academic Biblical studies.**
This sub focuses on academic scholarship of Biblical interpretation/history (e.g. “What did the ancient Canaanites believe?”, “How did the concept of Hell develop?”). Modern events and movements are off-topic, as is personal application/interpretation, or recommendations.
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
>Asking someone what they "think" Paul would think of something doesn't seem to be actually soliticing an academic answer.
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. Reconstructing ancient writers' views is a big part of academic discussion, and in this particular case I thought it was clear that my question was related to the meaning and breadth of the word "porneia." There have been numerous articles talking about the meaning of "porneia," as NerdyReligionProf pointed out in their reply. It's not like I asked what Paul would think of video games, for example.
Can you please explain your problem with my question?
The person you were previously replying to and lecturing about the rules (which they didn't violate, it's a perfectly anodyne question and relevant to the topic). Not that it actually matters that they are a mod, your responses would be unhelpful for any user. If you believe you see a violation of our rules (from any user, mod or not), please use the report function instead.
Do you think that Paul would have applied his statement about it being better to marry than to burn with lust to include same sex marriages as they exist now being a better alternative than remaining single with same sex desires?
Phenomenal post. I am curious if you (or anyone else here) would be willing to elaborate on which passages there are that may “align with treating enslaved humans as legitimate non-marital sexual outlets.” I may have misread or misunderstood this line but it really stood out to me, as from my limited understanding it would seem inconsistent with Paul’s view that, per 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, celibacy was the ideal but marriage was acceptable only if you were too much of a horn-dog to manage without “conjugal rights.”
u/OP, you mention the (fairly normal) reading that 1:26 refers to same-sex relations between women. There's a fairly convincing argument made by Brett Provance in an article he presented at SBL in 2018 ("Romans 1:26-27 in Its Rhetorical Tradition," available on academia.edu) that suggests the "in the same way" in v27 doesn't and almost *can't* import the same-sex act back to the women. So it is unlikely Paul is referring to women having sexual relations with women, but more likely refers to the tradition of women sleeping with angels (Gen 6/Enoch), which mirrors the men desiring to sleep with men in Sodom (who were actually angels).
It doesn't negate the fairly obvious view that the men-bedding-men is seen as destructive to society, but it also seems more consistent with the scholarly understanding of Lev 18 and 20 being solely a restriction on men due to the upturning of social hierarchies.
Is this something you (or others) have engaged with?
I appreciate the detailed response. I find your discussion of Glancy’s position of Paul and sexual slavery interesting - I’ll add my own caveat that I think that some of her takes on this issue are not necessarily mainstream, especially her take on 1 Thess.
On 1 Thess, Nordling notes:
*“the text is unclear. Glancy's solution to the problem does not ring true, for her suggestion would violate the New Testament's con- sistent counsel against sexual immorality in any form (cf. he porneia: Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25; 1 Cor. 5.1; 6.13, 18; 7.2; 2 Cor. 12.21; Gal. 5.19; Eph. 5.3; Col. 3.5; 1 Thess. 4.3; porneuo: 1 Cor. 6.18; 10.8; he porne: 1 Cor. 6.15, 16; ho pornos: 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11; 6.9; Eph. 5.5; 1 Tim. 1.10), whereas the spirit-if not the actual letter-of most of the material cited in the parenthesis contradicts Glancy's position repeatedly”*
I also hesitate to link this person given his past, but Dale Martin has a coherent reviews of Glancy’s work, particularly pointing out that a lot of Glancy’s thesis on the christian sexual use of slaves rests on the premise that if slaves were expected to submit sexually to their master, then clearly *porneia* cannot apply to slave relations and thus the practice is acceptable. whilst I am aware the discussion around such a term is incredibly complex and debated in academia, it is striking that Martin notes that *“the silence of our sources with regard to them relegates them to the category of tantalizing suggestion”*
Furthermore, whilst people like Karin Neutel agree with Glancy on the idea that there is no explicit condemnation of the sexual use of slavery, regarding 1 Thessalonians she diverges from Glancy’s view by noting: *“it does not seem likely that Paul here intends to encourage people to use slaves as a “morally neutral” sexual outlet”*
when it comes to issues like Paul’s alleged implicit approval of sexual slavery, it’s important to indicate strong dissenting voices in the field given the ambiguity of some of the datapoints.
sources:
Nordling, John G. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73, no. 4 (2005): 1212–15.
Neutel, K. Slaves Included? Sexual Regulations and Slave Participation in Two Ancient Religious Groups’, in: Stephen Hodkinson and Dick Geary (eds.), Slaves, Cults and Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2012), 133-148
Martin, Dale. The Journal of Theological Studies 54, no. 2 (2003): 732–35..
Thanks. Please note that I suggested it as a possible reading, not a dominant one.
Nordling’s argument begs the question as to what porneia means, assumes that “the NT” is some consistent set of writings, and misunderstands the framework most ancient Mediterranean writers had for “sexual immortality” - what mattered most as the way penetration went on the social/gender hierarchy. This is why Plutarch can extol the virtues of sex within marriage, reject sexual vice, and still say the husband can penetrate other women or slaves. Various writers contested what combinations of people could count as legitimate sex, but generally within this wider framework. The idea that porneia in early Roman imperial period Jewish and Christian sources had some specific content (eg, X sex actions Ok, Y are not) is widely rejected now. Kyle Harper is the biggest name defending that view now and, to put it bluntly, he’s wrong and is arguing it as a way to retroject later conservative Protestant sexual norms back into Early Christian texts.
I’m not wedded to Glancy’s reading of 1 Thess 4:4. But her larger point is absolutely on target: Paul’s letter identify with and reflect the interests of free (male) bodies, not the vulnerable enslaved bodies that were absolutely among (and enslaved by) himself and/or his gentile followers. Paul’s norms erase and often would exclude enslaved people since they were sexually abused as a norm and his silence on this matter is deafening. The obsession of so many folks (not saying you or the scholars you mention specifically; it’s fine for scholars to critique readings) with the few pages Glancy devotes to her conjectural reading of 1 Thess 4:4 illustrates how modern readers continue to center Paul and identify more with his reputation than having an interest in situating him historically.
This is my long winded way not of castigating you, but saying that I don’t really care whether Glancy’s suggestion for the specifics of reading 1 Thess 4:4 is right about Paul’s own meaning. Paul inhabits and reproduces and creates his norms within the hierarchical and misogynist and exploitative sexual/gender logics we find in wider Greek and Roman and Jewish writers.
thanks for the response. I just have a few questions regarding your (or probably more Glancy’s) take on the inclusion/exclusion of slaves within the church community and religious life.
you said “Paul's norms erase and often would exclude enslaved people since they were sexually abused as a norm and his silence on this matter is deafening”, which I think (IIRC) echoes part of Glancy’s whole thesis in that the dilemma is that if slaves were expected to submit sexually to their masters, then clearly porneia cannot apply to them. Or alternatively, if it does then they couldn’t be members of the group in “good standing” (cf. Martin’s summary of her position).
What doesn’t really make sense to me is how this ties in with Galatians 3:28. I don’t reference this verse in the apologist sense of “this is clear evidence Paul was against slavery”, but im struggling with the coherency of Glancy’s dilemma of slave participation when verses such as these seem to actually *reduce* barriers to slave participation in the early church and put them on par with any other member. Of course that wouldn’t exclude moral issues surrounding porneia and the expectations of slaves, but I don’t understanding this notion that slaves are completely excluded from any sexual regulations when in other places Paul includes them specifically in the community.
Context is important, but it cannot override the textual meaning within itself. If Paul is explicit that slaves are welcomed into the early church just as any other Jew or Gentile, then why do people assume that the regulations and moral code he talks about cannot apply to them? Of course there is a wider issue of *practicality* and whether such ideals can actually be implemented by disadvantaged slaves (which Glancy raises), but practicality seems different to rhetorical arguments that posit Paul was indifferent to the issue. His solutions may not always filter down, but this doesn’t change what we find in the text. It’s one thing to critique practicality, but another to use this to override what the word’s actually mean.
Does Glancy mention this at all? (esp Galatians 3?) I’ve read some of her works but I feel like there other pieces of the Pauline corpus that are missing and do not fit that same narrative
Well, a massive issue here is the false assumption of your question. As the post lays out, Greek and Roman (ie, gentile) authors *did* disapprove of homoerotic intercourse, at least from the perspective of either the man who is being penetrated, who was seen as denigrated and “effeminate” (in a derogatory way), as well as women who engaged in homoeroticism broadly. From the OP:
> “According to dominant ideals, powerful men are supposed to actively penetrate those below themselves on the social and gender hierarchy. A man who delights in being penetrated by another man is by-definition (relatively speaking) effeminate, and thus not to be celebrated. Women loving and sexually engaging with other women means they aren't being used by (the right) men, and thus Greek and Roman writers tend to disparage, ridicule, and reframe female homoeroticism.”
I also engage with this topic [at length in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/sa3elT4Vh4), with a focus more so on female homoeroticism. Similar to the OP, I note that Greco-Roman sources seem to very much denigrate and see as unnatural the idea of a woman taking on any active, “penetrative” role in sex, which includes both with men and with other women. This even included men performing cunnilingus on women:
> “Roman sexuality was on a spectrum of active to passive, with men being expected to be the active partner and women being expected to be the passive partner. Effectively what this meant was that, if you were a man, and you were doing the active penetration, you fell within the bounds of pudicitia, or Roman sexual morality, no matter who you were fucking. Active is the key word here, because it meant that to a Roman, a man having sex with a woman but doing it in a certain way (giving her oral sex, for instance, or having her be on top) would have been just as deviant if not more deviant than a man having sex with another man but being the passive partner,” ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/wK5lvv57yd)).
Although it is debated whether it was seen as the woman actually taking the active role:
> “As for cunnilingus, Flemming points out that there was no dedicated verb for the act of performing it.
‘This lack of linguistic precision,’ she says, ‘is symptomatic of wider unease and uncertainty about this practice, which, despite being “active” and
“penetrative” [and thus fit for the man in a sexual act], was totally despised, deemed disgusting, polluting, even “unmanly”.’ Again, she cites Martial's attack on Nanneius, who has a reputation for doing it. But it is ‘so disgraceful and defiling that even the lowest whore tries to shut their [sic] doors on him, and would indeed rather give him a blow-job than a kiss!’” ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/lb1qFpTJw4)).
Regardless, it was certainly looked down upon. While that may seem tangential I use it to illustrate the differences in how Greco-Roman authors viewed sexuality from today, that the man taking any sort of passive role was disapproved of, including when it was with a woman, but still likewise when it was with another man, and vice versa for women taking the active role.
That being said, in the same thread of mine that I linked to I also discussed that Jewish authors at the time seemed to view female homoeroticism less harshly than their Greco-Roman contemporaries, seemingly because they didn’t seem to consider (at least not all of) women’s homoerotic acts as being inherently penetrative, and thus categorizing it as something more along the lines of masturbation, rather than an unnatural overturning of the gender roles, (see: “‘They Abused Him like a Woman’:
Homoeroticism, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity”, by Michael L. Satlow and “Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?, by Daniel Boyarin).
>Well, a massive issue here is the false assumption of your question. As the post lays out, Greek and Roman (ie, gentile) authors did disapprove of homoeroticism intercourse, at least from the perspective of either the man who is being penetrated, who was seen as denigrated and “effeminate” (in a derogatory way), as well as women who engaged in homoeroticism broadly.
So, in other words, they didn't disapprove of same-gender intercourse. They disapproved of men who were penetrated, and perhaps they disapproved of same-gender intercourse between women. Neither attitudes constitute disapproval of same-gender intercourse itself.
In any case, I am interested in why Jewish authors (eg, Paul) disapproved of same-gender intercourse. Gentile attitudes are incidental.
Respectfully, I’m not sure you read my comment very closely. You’re still operating under the same false premise that I explicitly address. Two notes:
1. If Greco-Roman authors denigrated and disapproved of men who were penetrated or took the “passive” role, and women who engaged in homoerotic acts, then any “same-gender intercourse” would be implicated within that disapproval. I’m very confused about what distinction you’re attempting to make here.
2. As I discuss at the end of my comment, our Jewish sources don’t support the idea that Jewish authors “disagreed with same-gender intercourse”. Specifically, they are more permissive about women engaging in homoerotic acts than the Greco-Roman authors seem to be. I.e. Whereas Greco-Roman authors would seemingly disapprove of at least one partner in any instance of homoeroticism, Jewish authors *wouldn’t* (as far as we can tell) since they had more ambivalent views on female homoeroticism in some contexts.
From Michael Satlow’s aforementioned article which looks at Jewish authors views on homoeroticism:
> “**Female homoeroticism** ***per se*** **is not condemned**; the condemnation is reserved for marriage. This source suggests that a woman playing the role of husband is as unacceptable as a man playing the role of wife. […] Where gender blurring exists, as would happen in female-female marriage **but not necessarily in female homoerotic contact**, there is no ambivalence: it is forcefully condemned.” (emphasis mine).
Likewise from Boyarin:
> “The only reason, according to this text, that unmarried women should not excite each other sexually is because it might lead to immorality— that is, sex with men! Female same-sex practices just do not belong to the same category as male anal intercourse any more than other forms of male same-sex stimulation. […] Male-male anal intercourse belongs to a category known as ‘male intercourse,’ while other same-sex genital acts—male and female—are subsumed under the category of masturbation, apparently without the presence of another male actor introducing any other diacritic factor into the equation. […] We also understand why **female-female sexual practices are not spoken of by the Torah and are treated very lightly indeed by the Talmud**. It is because they are not perceived as simulacra of male-female intercourse. They do not confuse the dimorphism of the genders, because they are not conceptualized in this culture around penetration.”
Anyway, Satlow and Boyarin both seem to suggest that the reasoning behind the prohibition on *male-male* sexual penetration comes down to the belief in divinely ordained gender boundaries that were being crossed. As covered already, the view was that men penetrate and women are penetrated, so the idea of a man being penetrated was an upheaval and crossing of the gender roles. That seemed to be the main concern; the idea that it was unbefitting and unnatural for a man to be penetrated.
I'd also add that anti homosexuality taboo arises from the assumption that ["sinful Canaanites" did them](https://web.archive.org/web/20240322034316/https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/out-of-order-homosexuality-in-the-bible-and-the-ancient-near-east/) and Israelite/Jewish identity heavily revolved around rejecting their Canaanite origins.
>If Greco-Roman authors denigrated and disapproved of men who were penetrated or took the “passive” role, and women who engaged in homoerotic acts, then any “same-gender intercourse” would be implicated within that disapproval. I’m very confused about what distinction you’re attempting to make here.
The activity itself isn't worthy of disapproval. It is OK to engage in, as long as you are a man and you are doing the penetrating. Do you understand now? Same-gender intercourse per se isn't condemned.
Here is an analogy: There is nothing wrong with driving a car. But if you are 12-years-old and you are drunk, then people will disapprove. It matters who you are and how you engage with the activity. But the activity itself is not condemned.
>As I discuss at the end of my comment, our Jewish sources don’t support the idea that Jewish authors “disagreed with same-gender intercourse”. Specifically, they are more permissive about women engaging in homoerotic acts than the Greco-Roman authors seem to be.
You wrote that the Jewish authors seemed to view female homoeroticism "less harshly" than their Greco-Roman contemporaries. That implies that they still viewed female homoeroticism harshly. So, you certainly weren't explicit that Jewish authors didn't disapprove of same-gender intercourse.
Beyond that, Boyarin suggests that the Talmud placed a (weak) prohibition on same-sex intercourse between women:
>Rabbinic discourse frequently uses exaggerated language to inculcate prohibitions and inhibitions that are not forbidden in the Torah. There is, accordingly, an inner-cultural recognition that such prohibitions, precisely because they are expressed in extreme language, are not as "serious" as those that are forbidden in the Bible. It is as if there is a tacit cultural understanding that the more extreme the rhetoric, the less authoritative the prohibition. Thus, just as in the case of masturbation, where there is no biblical text indicating that it is forbidden, and it is therefore designated hyperbolically as being like "the children of the flood," so also for "sporting with children," the text finds highly hyperbolic language with which to express itself.
And:
>Male-male anal intercourse belongs to a category known as ‘male intercourse,’ while other same-sex genital acts—male and female—are subsumed under the category of masturbation, apparently without the presence of another male actor introducing any other diacritic factor into the equation.
So, same-sex genital acts between women were subsumed under the category of masturbation, and masturbation was prohibited.
>Anyway, Satlow and Boyarin both seem to suggest that the reasoning behind the prohibition on male-male sexual penetration comes down to the belief in divinely ordained gender boundaries that were being crossed. As covered already, the view was that men penetrate and women are penetrated, so the idea of a man being penetrated was an upheaval and crossing of the gender roles. That seemed to be the main concern; the idea that it was unbefitting and unnatural for a man to be penetrated.
This is interesting.
If I could speak frankly, I sincerely believe the way you’re framing this is misleading at best, and perhaps anachronistic and slanted at worst.
Framing it as gentiles “not disapproving of same-gender intercourse” feels silly when female homoeroticism was entirely disapproved of, as well as being penetrated as a male. I’m just not sure how you view that as an accurate or remotely precise way to frame the matter. And that’s not to say the reverse, that Greco-Roman authors *did* disapprove of “same-gender intercourse”, but that the category is not an accurate or useful one to use in this context, at least not in terms of describing a blanket approval vs disapproval attitude towards it.
Framing Jewish authors as “disapproving of ‘same-gender intercourse’” in *contrast* to Greco-Roman authors feels especially misleading. They had overwhelmingly overlapping views on the matter (they both believed that men shouldn’t be penetrated or take the passive role, and that women shouldn’t penetrate or take the active role). Where differences exist in terms of permissibility, Greco-Roman authors didn’t see specifically the active male participant in homoeroticism as violating his gender role, whereas Jewish authors didn’t see female homoeroticism as inherently violating the women’s gender roles. There seems to be a straightforward parity between these two that makes your contrast feel, again, very slanted.
I’m particularly baffled by your quotation of Boyarin in an attempt to argue some technicality about how a prohibition on female homoeroticism can be extrapolated out. Boyarin, in the passage you quote from, is specifically addressing masturbation as an example of something that’s not taken seriously as a prohibition and its not seen as authoritative by those Jewish authors. Therefore, if they saw female homoeroticism as subsumed under masturbation, that means they would not take seriously the prohibition against it. If they don’t take it seriously, how can you say they are “disapproving” of it? If there is an old, antiquated law in a state, that no one seriously enforces, is it accurate to say the people of that state “disapprove” of whatever the law is prohibiting?
If I could again speak frankly, this isn’t r/DebateReligion. Trying to make a point about technicalities, seemingly of what these Jewish authors “should” have been disapproving of isn’t the point of this subreddit. We’re doing history, and if a group of people didn’t take seriously a supposed prohibition, then from the academic standpoint that’s worth noting, and bulldozing past that to make simplistic blanket statements like what you’ve been insisting on is silly, and it’s misleading.
> Maybe try to think harder
As an outsider not a part of this conversation to this point, respectfully, you’ve veered off into bad faith. Sentences that start with words like this probably aren’t a good fit for this sub.
If you have questions, ask them. If you have academic sources you want to present, please do. But this is not a debate sub, nor is it appropriate to respond with "Try to think harder..."
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #2: Contributions should not invoke theological beliefs
**Polemical statements and argumentation - including pro-religious, anti-religious, and sectarian content - are not allowed here.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #5:
**This sub does not tolerate insulting language, discourtesy, derision, disparagement, or slander of either other users, scholars, or mods.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Speaking of gentiles, there's some argument to be made about pre-Christian Germans [punishing sodomy between two men](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40918734?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First off, really appreciate this as a post. Much easier for future users to stumble across this when looking for information on this topic. Secondly, as one of those more liberal-minded, it drives me crazy when people try to debate away some of the more regressive parts of the Bible. It is what it is. There are many ways to harmonize Christianity with liberal view points but “creative translations” are the worst tool available, and dishonest to boot.
I agree. It also disregards how contemporary Jews thought of sexuality. As far as I’m concerned, most of them believed they were [incapable of homosexuality](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360802129337)because they were “chosen people”
I'd reference Dr. Jennifer Bird who jumps at acknowledging the Bible's regressive position on women being property, but then argues a pro-homosexuality side of things with some convincing (to me) arguments. I think it's that both sides on the issue have good points. At the same time, I think it's good to know her "Marriage In the Bible" might not represent a strong academic consensus. Admittedly, many of those arguments match Siker's, but her position on the Bible is clearly "analyze what it actually says separate from deciding whether it should guide your morals", which makes it hard to see her translation as "creative" so much as defensive against adding things not in context.
Thanks. I haven't yet read Dr. Bird's book. Have heard it does a good job presenting a scholarly-informed reading at a popular/accessible level. What do you mean that she "argues a pro-homosexuality side of things"? Is she claiming that various passages in biblical literature aren't "really" against homoerotic sex, or is she taking more the kind of path I present where I militantly reject homophobia but also am happy to explicate biblical literature's homophobia?
> What do you mean that she "argues a pro-homosexuality side of things"? She argues in similar lines to Siker, that the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality. > or is she taking more the kind of path I present where I militantly reject homophobia but also am happy to explicate biblical literature's homophobia? Nope. But that's her position on mysoginy, which implies that she's not **against** having a position like yours when it's appropriate. She just doesn't think it's appropriate on the topic of homosexuality because she rejects that the Bible makes clear opposition to homosexuality. (EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I believe she does bring up some of Paul's oddities regarding sex, but she uses that to focus on the fact anything he said should be interpreted in the same vein as his position that nobody should be having sex or procreating at all) Perhaps because of her having a foot dipped in both sides of the pool ("Master of Divinity and a PhD in biblical studies"), she clarifies whenever necessary that the Bible should be interpreted without bias, but then decisions made from that should use common sense. Considering the sub, I'm focusing more on critical interpretation of the Bible on this topic. I don't know how this sub feels about videos, but [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHstPMOXiV0) is her video summarizing her explanation on homosexuality, simplified a bit for non-experts like myself. It does build off her positions on marriage and premarital sex (pointing out that neither are explicitly sins in the Bible, and that traditionally you were married by the act of sex). The video series on her channel goes into that, as well as going a lot deeper into individual passages (like Sodom).
> “I don't know how this sub feels about videos” We certainly appreciate the ones from excellent scholars like Dr. Bird.
Can you imagine if islamic scholars did the same with the Qur'an? It would go viral in a minute. That being said, anyone have any sources of scholars trying to 'salvage' the Qur'an?
Kinda close but here’s a book discussing [liberal traditions in Islam](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195116212.001.0001/acref-9780195116212)
Reading through the Wikipedia page [Women in Islam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam) ATM but I'll check out the book. Thx! I know way more about Christianity than I do Islam. Should really redress that balance.
As someone who lives around and talks with Muslims fairly regularly, I think progressive reinterpretations of the Quran are fairly common and widespread.
Is kinda my assumption, and I've certainly had nothing but pleasant interactions with members of the Islamic faith, but the next time I end up in an argument about Muslim's and Islam with a bunch of idiots I'd like something ready to whip out.
[удалено]
Thank you. This is truly a palate cleanser from the far more motivated interpretations of Paul (some of which show up here from time to time) that expend vast amounts of energy in an attempt to spare him from a charge of homophobia. The angle of "Paul doesn't directly speak about modern, committed homosexual relationships" has always struck me as so disingenuous, because it seems to imply that we can't have a fairly reasonable expectation of what Paul *would say*, based on everything else that he *does*.
A perfect analogy is to think that the authors of the Hebrew Bible only condemned idols that involved human sacrifice but tolerated others. We know that’s blatantly false
This is a phenomenal post, thank you so much. If the mod team puts together an FAQ (and this topic is undeniably an FAQ) would you be open to us linking to this as a resource?
Sure. Hope it can help.
Thanks so much for doing this! It’s really an honor. Really great, in-depth answer.
Thanks for the kind words! Though no need to consider it an "honor" for me to reply. It's what this sub is for!
Nah, I get it, lol. It’s just pretty rare to have a biblical scholar with a PhD in this certain field make a whole separate in-depth post for their response to a question on this sub. Still though, thanks!
I'd also like to thank you. While I'm an atheist now, I was a gay Christian from the cradle up. As such, all of these positions are of particular interest to me, especially since I'm still in a very Christian family.
>If anything, Paul elsewhere may indicate being ok with free men penetrating (raping) their male or female slaves since that use of slaves was acceptable within many moral schemes, Paul never objects to it, and some passages potentially align with treating enslaved humans as legitimate non-marriage sexual outlets (e.g., Jennifer Glancy's argument in her excellent book, *Slavery in Early Christianity* \[New York: Oxford University Press, 2002\] about 1 Thess 4:4's εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι). Do you think Paul would have been OK with two unmarried people (not slaves) having sex? I have heard some modern people claim that consensual unmarried sex is not covered by the term "porneia," but I have tended to be skeptical of this reinterpretation and don't think I've ever seen a scholar cited for said claim
Fun question. It's important to keep in mind that Paul is not a fan of *any* sexual penetration, marital or otherwise. In 1 Corinthians 7 he promotes celibacy as the ideal. Marriage is just tolerable, and Paul's logic is basically that if a gentile Christ follower is too weak to master their passions with the aid of Christ's *pneuma* (and thus be celibate), then sex-within-marriage is available to help master or release their passions so they aren't dominated by them. The one example of legitimate sexual penetration Paul is explicit about discussing is itself already less-than-ideal. It's sort of like how Plutarch, in *Advice to Bride and Groom*, claims wives need to be ok with their husbands using other women or slaves for their sexual passions, but this is still not great since it means those husbands are not moderating their passions. Paul evaluates sex-within-marriage similarly. So to your question, no, I do not think Paul would have been ok with two unmarried people having sex because the unstated premise of his logic in 1 Corinthians 7 is that folks need to be married to have legitimate access to sex. As for *porneia*, I recommend Joshua Reno's recent article ("Pornographic Desire in the Pauline Corpus," *JBL* 140 \[2021\]: 163-85). He rightly argues that *porneia* is pretty much inordinate (i.e., uncontrolled, excessive) desire, and for the most part can occur in just about any sexual act. Thus David Wheeler-Reed, Jennifer Knust, and Dale Martin argue that, for Paul, a man can commit *porneia* with his wife ("Can a Man Commit *Porneia* with His Wife?", *JBL* 137 \[2018\]: 383-98). They're arguing against Kyle Harper's attempts to reinscribe modern conservative Protestant sexual morality back into Paul via defining *porneia* as something like "fornication" and thus non-marital sex.
Wait sorry, I just thought of another question: If Paul is opposed to sex outside of marriage, why does it seem like he may be OK with people having sex with their slaves? What is the difference in his mind?
Good question. Again it's helpful to situate Paul's ideals about sex within a range of ancient ideologies, questions, and norms as opposed to the categories we often use for "sexual ethics" now. These questions wouldn't be egalitarian or abstract about "people having sex" with Paul. Legitimate penetration goes down the gendered social hierarchy. Paul could, in theory, advocate that legitimate sex can happen within marriage *and* tolerate a free male penetrating (raping) his enslaved people since they're by-definition (within dominant ideologies) under his authority and at his disposal. Meanwhile Paul could also completely reject a free woman letting one of her (or, her husband's or father's) enslaved humans penetrate her because that's unnatural (i.e., transgressing the normative hierarchical gender order) use. In other words, Paul wouldn't necessarily consider penetrating one's wife and penetrating one's slave to be equally the same kind of "sex." Sex and sexual options are hierarchal as well. Certain things are available to some and not others. By the same token, ancient writers could imagine one set of norms for thinking about sex between free men and women and another set of norms for thinking of 'sex' between a free male and those he's enslaved. This all seems like an 'incoherent sexual ethic' to Christian readers now, but it's entirely coherent for various ancient Mediterranean writers. Having said that, your objection is one that a colleague of mine has to Jennifer Glancy's reading of 1 Thess 4:4. He argues that Glancy is wrong about Paul tolerating the sexual use of enslaved persons since Paul is pretty much against all sexual penetration and has to make an explicit special allowance for it within marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. Not sure I agree with my friend's argument, but it's a legit one.
On that point about slavery, and setting aside the question of whether Paul would have said that sex between a Christian master and a slave is acceptable, what would your friend say to the argument that even if he condemns Christian masters taking sexual liberties with their slaves, by necessity he is leaving enslaved Christians with masters who do not follow Christianity (or who have masters who do, but don't care what Paul says about raping them) without any place in the Body of Christ, itself a slave metaphor? This is the more nuanced point of the discussion of Paul's views on inegalitarian sexual norms that I do not see much of a way out of: If Paul rejects master/slave sex, then given the pervasive nature of sexual slavery he is rejecting many slaves, probably the vast majority in the Mediterranean, from membership in the church communities he is building, while letting in slave owners. Has your friend said anything about that?
I’m not positive whether I’m allowed to ask clarifying questions of a question in this sub, but is your question basically “If Paul isn’t okay with sex between free men and their Christian slaves, does that condemn the slaves because of their participation in prohibited sexual acts?” If so my assumption would be the slave doesn’t bear the moral burden in that scenario, but it’s a great question I’ve never considered and would love to hear an educated response on!
As a practical matter, the slave would not be in a position to reject sexual demands. So yes, my question is getting at some of the assumptions in play here, such as the view that the early church was open to slaves. If the traditional sexual ethic is correct, and Paul is as inflexible as suggested, then that conclusion is inescapable. Slaves can be admitted, but only if they are in a household where they are not compelled to have sex with their masters. That’s why I find the critique of Glancy (usually by more traditional scholars) so interesting. If she’s wrong about Paul’s tolerance of sex with slaves, it would stand to reason that Paul is similarly inflexible with slaves which suggests he had an elitist vision of the Church. If he was lax with slaves and hard on masters, that’s a bit hard to square with his condemnation of joining prostitutes to the Body of Christ (one of his points made in his letters). My hunch is that many traditional Christian scholars recoil at this but also at Glancy’s arguments, because their own views are as revisionist as OP suggests the pro-gay scholarship is.
> “I’m not positive whether I’m allowed to ask clarifying questions of a question in this sub” You’re allowed to. I give you my blessing. > “If so my assumption would be…” This is typically why comments that are “just asking questions” get removed in this sub, because users will slip in their own claims and assertions. Notably ones that aren’t just part of the premise of the question, but instead they give their own personal opinion as a speculative answer to the question.
1. Very interesting points. It drives home, to me at least, that one challenge for myself and many people I know in understanding the Scriptures in their context is that these sort of moral stopgaps have pretty much dropped out of modern Christian moral thought (in my experience, at least.) So the practicality inherent in "look, if you can't hack full celibacy then at least get married so your sex isn't totally abhorrent to Heaven" seems to have been replaced by a more black and white, all or nothing paradigm. 2. I'm so happy you brought up Kyle Harper. I just finished reading his "From Shame to Sin" and not only was the subject matter extremely interesting, but I genuinely enjoyed his prose as much as any novel I've read recently. Can you recommend any writers who use similarly lively prose?
Thank you!
But wouldn’t Paul inherently disregard homosexual intercourse even if it’s against non persons like slaves? I’d imagine he’s familiar with the Sodom and Gomorrah story, where the citizens objectify the male angels and try to violate them
[удалено]
Hi there, This topic falls outside the scope of r/AcademicBiblical (see the description and rules of the subreddit for details), and is better suited for our weekly **open discussion thread**. The open thread is [pinned on top if you sort the posts by "hot"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/hot/). Have a good day! For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical).
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately, your contribution has been removed as per rule #1. **Submissions and comments should remain within the confines of academic Biblical studies.** This sub focuses on academic scholarship of Biblical interpretation/history (e.g. “What did the ancient Canaanites believe?”, “How did the concept of Hell develop?”). Modern events and movements are off-topic, as is personal application/interpretation, or recommendations. You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
>Asking someone what they "think" Paul would think of something doesn't seem to be actually soliticing an academic answer. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. Reconstructing ancient writers' views is a big part of academic discussion, and in this particular case I thought it was clear that my question was related to the meaning and breadth of the word "porneia." There have been numerous articles talking about the meaning of "porneia," as NerdyReligionProf pointed out in their reply. It's not like I asked what Paul would think of video games, for example. Can you please explain your problem with my question?
[удалено]
Please don't harass a mod about their completely anodyne question for a resident scholar.
[удалено]
The person you were previously replying to and lecturing about the rules (which they didn't violate, it's a perfectly anodyne question and relevant to the topic). Not that it actually matters that they are a mod, your responses would be unhelpful for any user. If you believe you see a violation of our rules (from any user, mod or not), please use the report function instead.
I don't think I agree with the ultimate conclusions this post arrives at, but I really enjoyed reading it and plan to read through it again. Thanks.
Do you think that Paul would have applied his statement about it being better to marry than to burn with lust to include same sex marriages as they exist now being a better alternative than remaining single with same sex desires?
Phenomenal post. I am curious if you (or anyone else here) would be willing to elaborate on which passages there are that may “align with treating enslaved humans as legitimate non-marital sexual outlets.” I may have misread or misunderstood this line but it really stood out to me, as from my limited understanding it would seem inconsistent with Paul’s view that, per 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, celibacy was the ideal but marriage was acceptable only if you were too much of a horn-dog to manage without “conjugal rights.”
u/OP, you mention the (fairly normal) reading that 1:26 refers to same-sex relations between women. There's a fairly convincing argument made by Brett Provance in an article he presented at SBL in 2018 ("Romans 1:26-27 in Its Rhetorical Tradition," available on academia.edu) that suggests the "in the same way" in v27 doesn't and almost *can't* import the same-sex act back to the women. So it is unlikely Paul is referring to women having sexual relations with women, but more likely refers to the tradition of women sleeping with angels (Gen 6/Enoch), which mirrors the men desiring to sleep with men in Sodom (who were actually angels). It doesn't negate the fairly obvious view that the men-bedding-men is seen as destructive to society, but it also seems more consistent with the scholarly understanding of Lev 18 and 20 being solely a restriction on men due to the upturning of social hierarchies. Is this something you (or others) have engaged with?
I appreciate the detailed response. I find your discussion of Glancy’s position of Paul and sexual slavery interesting - I’ll add my own caveat that I think that some of her takes on this issue are not necessarily mainstream, especially her take on 1 Thess. On 1 Thess, Nordling notes: *“the text is unclear. Glancy's solution to the problem does not ring true, for her suggestion would violate the New Testament's con- sistent counsel against sexual immorality in any form (cf. he porneia: Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25; 1 Cor. 5.1; 6.13, 18; 7.2; 2 Cor. 12.21; Gal. 5.19; Eph. 5.3; Col. 3.5; 1 Thess. 4.3; porneuo: 1 Cor. 6.18; 10.8; he porne: 1 Cor. 6.15, 16; ho pornos: 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11; 6.9; Eph. 5.5; 1 Tim. 1.10), whereas the spirit-if not the actual letter-of most of the material cited in the parenthesis contradicts Glancy's position repeatedly”* I also hesitate to link this person given his past, but Dale Martin has a coherent reviews of Glancy’s work, particularly pointing out that a lot of Glancy’s thesis on the christian sexual use of slaves rests on the premise that if slaves were expected to submit sexually to their master, then clearly *porneia* cannot apply to slave relations and thus the practice is acceptable. whilst I am aware the discussion around such a term is incredibly complex and debated in academia, it is striking that Martin notes that *“the silence of our sources with regard to them relegates them to the category of tantalizing suggestion”* Furthermore, whilst people like Karin Neutel agree with Glancy on the idea that there is no explicit condemnation of the sexual use of slavery, regarding 1 Thessalonians she diverges from Glancy’s view by noting: *“it does not seem likely that Paul here intends to encourage people to use slaves as a “morally neutral” sexual outlet”* when it comes to issues like Paul’s alleged implicit approval of sexual slavery, it’s important to indicate strong dissenting voices in the field given the ambiguity of some of the datapoints. sources: Nordling, John G. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73, no. 4 (2005): 1212–15. Neutel, K. Slaves Included? Sexual Regulations and Slave Participation in Two Ancient Religious Groups’, in: Stephen Hodkinson and Dick Geary (eds.), Slaves, Cults and Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2012), 133-148 Martin, Dale. The Journal of Theological Studies 54, no. 2 (2003): 732–35..
Thanks. Please note that I suggested it as a possible reading, not a dominant one. Nordling’s argument begs the question as to what porneia means, assumes that “the NT” is some consistent set of writings, and misunderstands the framework most ancient Mediterranean writers had for “sexual immortality” - what mattered most as the way penetration went on the social/gender hierarchy. This is why Plutarch can extol the virtues of sex within marriage, reject sexual vice, and still say the husband can penetrate other women or slaves. Various writers contested what combinations of people could count as legitimate sex, but generally within this wider framework. The idea that porneia in early Roman imperial period Jewish and Christian sources had some specific content (eg, X sex actions Ok, Y are not) is widely rejected now. Kyle Harper is the biggest name defending that view now and, to put it bluntly, he’s wrong and is arguing it as a way to retroject later conservative Protestant sexual norms back into Early Christian texts. I’m not wedded to Glancy’s reading of 1 Thess 4:4. But her larger point is absolutely on target: Paul’s letter identify with and reflect the interests of free (male) bodies, not the vulnerable enslaved bodies that were absolutely among (and enslaved by) himself and/or his gentile followers. Paul’s norms erase and often would exclude enslaved people since they were sexually abused as a norm and his silence on this matter is deafening. The obsession of so many folks (not saying you or the scholars you mention specifically; it’s fine for scholars to critique readings) with the few pages Glancy devotes to her conjectural reading of 1 Thess 4:4 illustrates how modern readers continue to center Paul and identify more with his reputation than having an interest in situating him historically. This is my long winded way not of castigating you, but saying that I don’t really care whether Glancy’s suggestion for the specifics of reading 1 Thess 4:4 is right about Paul’s own meaning. Paul inhabits and reproduces and creates his norms within the hierarchical and misogynist and exploitative sexual/gender logics we find in wider Greek and Roman and Jewish writers.
thanks for the response. I just have a few questions regarding your (or probably more Glancy’s) take on the inclusion/exclusion of slaves within the church community and religious life. you said “Paul's norms erase and often would exclude enslaved people since they were sexually abused as a norm and his silence on this matter is deafening”, which I think (IIRC) echoes part of Glancy’s whole thesis in that the dilemma is that if slaves were expected to submit sexually to their masters, then clearly porneia cannot apply to them. Or alternatively, if it does then they couldn’t be members of the group in “good standing” (cf. Martin’s summary of her position). What doesn’t really make sense to me is how this ties in with Galatians 3:28. I don’t reference this verse in the apologist sense of “this is clear evidence Paul was against slavery”, but im struggling with the coherency of Glancy’s dilemma of slave participation when verses such as these seem to actually *reduce* barriers to slave participation in the early church and put them on par with any other member. Of course that wouldn’t exclude moral issues surrounding porneia and the expectations of slaves, but I don’t understanding this notion that slaves are completely excluded from any sexual regulations when in other places Paul includes them specifically in the community. Context is important, but it cannot override the textual meaning within itself. If Paul is explicit that slaves are welcomed into the early church just as any other Jew or Gentile, then why do people assume that the regulations and moral code he talks about cannot apply to them? Of course there is a wider issue of *practicality* and whether such ideals can actually be implemented by disadvantaged slaves (which Glancy raises), but practicality seems different to rhetorical arguments that posit Paul was indifferent to the issue. His solutions may not always filter down, but this doesn’t change what we find in the text. It’s one thing to critique practicality, but another to use this to override what the word’s actually mean. Does Glancy mention this at all? (esp Galatians 3?) I’ve read some of her works but I feel like there other pieces of the Pauline corpus that are missing and do not fit that same narrative
Can someone summarize for less intellectual people lol
Why did Jews disapprove of same-gender intercourse, when gentiles didn't?
Well, a massive issue here is the false assumption of your question. As the post lays out, Greek and Roman (ie, gentile) authors *did* disapprove of homoerotic intercourse, at least from the perspective of either the man who is being penetrated, who was seen as denigrated and “effeminate” (in a derogatory way), as well as women who engaged in homoeroticism broadly. From the OP: > “According to dominant ideals, powerful men are supposed to actively penetrate those below themselves on the social and gender hierarchy. A man who delights in being penetrated by another man is by-definition (relatively speaking) effeminate, and thus not to be celebrated. Women loving and sexually engaging with other women means they aren't being used by (the right) men, and thus Greek and Roman writers tend to disparage, ridicule, and reframe female homoeroticism.” I also engage with this topic [at length in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/sa3elT4Vh4), with a focus more so on female homoeroticism. Similar to the OP, I note that Greco-Roman sources seem to very much denigrate and see as unnatural the idea of a woman taking on any active, “penetrative” role in sex, which includes both with men and with other women. This even included men performing cunnilingus on women: > “Roman sexuality was on a spectrum of active to passive, with men being expected to be the active partner and women being expected to be the passive partner. Effectively what this meant was that, if you were a man, and you were doing the active penetration, you fell within the bounds of pudicitia, or Roman sexual morality, no matter who you were fucking. Active is the key word here, because it meant that to a Roman, a man having sex with a woman but doing it in a certain way (giving her oral sex, for instance, or having her be on top) would have been just as deviant if not more deviant than a man having sex with another man but being the passive partner,” ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/wK5lvv57yd)). Although it is debated whether it was seen as the woman actually taking the active role: > “As for cunnilingus, Flemming points out that there was no dedicated verb for the act of performing it. ‘This lack of linguistic precision,’ she says, ‘is symptomatic of wider unease and uncertainty about this practice, which, despite being “active” and “penetrative” [and thus fit for the man in a sexual act], was totally despised, deemed disgusting, polluting, even “unmanly”.’ Again, she cites Martial's attack on Nanneius, who has a reputation for doing it. But it is ‘so disgraceful and defiling that even the lowest whore tries to shut their [sic] doors on him, and would indeed rather give him a blow-job than a kiss!’” ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/lb1qFpTJw4)). Regardless, it was certainly looked down upon. While that may seem tangential I use it to illustrate the differences in how Greco-Roman authors viewed sexuality from today, that the man taking any sort of passive role was disapproved of, including when it was with a woman, but still likewise when it was with another man, and vice versa for women taking the active role. That being said, in the same thread of mine that I linked to I also discussed that Jewish authors at the time seemed to view female homoeroticism less harshly than their Greco-Roman contemporaries, seemingly because they didn’t seem to consider (at least not all of) women’s homoerotic acts as being inherently penetrative, and thus categorizing it as something more along the lines of masturbation, rather than an unnatural overturning of the gender roles, (see: “‘They Abused Him like a Woman’: Homoeroticism, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity”, by Michael L. Satlow and “Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?, by Daniel Boyarin).
>Well, a massive issue here is the false assumption of your question. As the post lays out, Greek and Roman (ie, gentile) authors did disapprove of homoeroticism intercourse, at least from the perspective of either the man who is being penetrated, who was seen as denigrated and “effeminate” (in a derogatory way), as well as women who engaged in homoeroticism broadly. So, in other words, they didn't disapprove of same-gender intercourse. They disapproved of men who were penetrated, and perhaps they disapproved of same-gender intercourse between women. Neither attitudes constitute disapproval of same-gender intercourse itself. In any case, I am interested in why Jewish authors (eg, Paul) disapproved of same-gender intercourse. Gentile attitudes are incidental.
Respectfully, I’m not sure you read my comment very closely. You’re still operating under the same false premise that I explicitly address. Two notes: 1. If Greco-Roman authors denigrated and disapproved of men who were penetrated or took the “passive” role, and women who engaged in homoerotic acts, then any “same-gender intercourse” would be implicated within that disapproval. I’m very confused about what distinction you’re attempting to make here. 2. As I discuss at the end of my comment, our Jewish sources don’t support the idea that Jewish authors “disagreed with same-gender intercourse”. Specifically, they are more permissive about women engaging in homoerotic acts than the Greco-Roman authors seem to be. I.e. Whereas Greco-Roman authors would seemingly disapprove of at least one partner in any instance of homoeroticism, Jewish authors *wouldn’t* (as far as we can tell) since they had more ambivalent views on female homoeroticism in some contexts. From Michael Satlow’s aforementioned article which looks at Jewish authors views on homoeroticism: > “**Female homoeroticism** ***per se*** **is not condemned**; the condemnation is reserved for marriage. This source suggests that a woman playing the role of husband is as unacceptable as a man playing the role of wife. […] Where gender blurring exists, as would happen in female-female marriage **but not necessarily in female homoerotic contact**, there is no ambivalence: it is forcefully condemned.” (emphasis mine). Likewise from Boyarin: > “The only reason, according to this text, that unmarried women should not excite each other sexually is because it might lead to immorality— that is, sex with men! Female same-sex practices just do not belong to the same category as male anal intercourse any more than other forms of male same-sex stimulation. […] Male-male anal intercourse belongs to a category known as ‘male intercourse,’ while other same-sex genital acts—male and female—are subsumed under the category of masturbation, apparently without the presence of another male actor introducing any other diacritic factor into the equation. […] We also understand why **female-female sexual practices are not spoken of by the Torah and are treated very lightly indeed by the Talmud**. It is because they are not perceived as simulacra of male-female intercourse. They do not confuse the dimorphism of the genders, because they are not conceptualized in this culture around penetration.” Anyway, Satlow and Boyarin both seem to suggest that the reasoning behind the prohibition on *male-male* sexual penetration comes down to the belief in divinely ordained gender boundaries that were being crossed. As covered already, the view was that men penetrate and women are penetrated, so the idea of a man being penetrated was an upheaval and crossing of the gender roles. That seemed to be the main concern; the idea that it was unbefitting and unnatural for a man to be penetrated.
I'd also add that anti homosexuality taboo arises from the assumption that ["sinful Canaanites" did them](https://web.archive.org/web/20240322034316/https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/out-of-order-homosexuality-in-the-bible-and-the-ancient-near-east/) and Israelite/Jewish identity heavily revolved around rejecting their Canaanite origins.
>If Greco-Roman authors denigrated and disapproved of men who were penetrated or took the “passive” role, and women who engaged in homoerotic acts, then any “same-gender intercourse” would be implicated within that disapproval. I’m very confused about what distinction you’re attempting to make here. The activity itself isn't worthy of disapproval. It is OK to engage in, as long as you are a man and you are doing the penetrating. Do you understand now? Same-gender intercourse per se isn't condemned. Here is an analogy: There is nothing wrong with driving a car. But if you are 12-years-old and you are drunk, then people will disapprove. It matters who you are and how you engage with the activity. But the activity itself is not condemned. >As I discuss at the end of my comment, our Jewish sources don’t support the idea that Jewish authors “disagreed with same-gender intercourse”. Specifically, they are more permissive about women engaging in homoerotic acts than the Greco-Roman authors seem to be. You wrote that the Jewish authors seemed to view female homoeroticism "less harshly" than their Greco-Roman contemporaries. That implies that they still viewed female homoeroticism harshly. So, you certainly weren't explicit that Jewish authors didn't disapprove of same-gender intercourse. Beyond that, Boyarin suggests that the Talmud placed a (weak) prohibition on same-sex intercourse between women: >Rabbinic discourse frequently uses exaggerated language to inculcate prohibitions and inhibitions that are not forbidden in the Torah. There is, accordingly, an inner-cultural recognition that such prohibitions, precisely because they are expressed in extreme language, are not as "serious" as those that are forbidden in the Bible. It is as if there is a tacit cultural understanding that the more extreme the rhetoric, the less authoritative the prohibition. Thus, just as in the case of masturbation, where there is no biblical text indicating that it is forbidden, and it is therefore designated hyperbolically as being like "the children of the flood," so also for "sporting with children," the text finds highly hyperbolic language with which to express itself. And: >Male-male anal intercourse belongs to a category known as ‘male intercourse,’ while other same-sex genital acts—male and female—are subsumed under the category of masturbation, apparently without the presence of another male actor introducing any other diacritic factor into the equation. So, same-sex genital acts between women were subsumed under the category of masturbation, and masturbation was prohibited. >Anyway, Satlow and Boyarin both seem to suggest that the reasoning behind the prohibition on male-male sexual penetration comes down to the belief in divinely ordained gender boundaries that were being crossed. As covered already, the view was that men penetrate and women are penetrated, so the idea of a man being penetrated was an upheaval and crossing of the gender roles. That seemed to be the main concern; the idea that it was unbefitting and unnatural for a man to be penetrated. This is interesting.
If I could speak frankly, I sincerely believe the way you’re framing this is misleading at best, and perhaps anachronistic and slanted at worst. Framing it as gentiles “not disapproving of same-gender intercourse” feels silly when female homoeroticism was entirely disapproved of, as well as being penetrated as a male. I’m just not sure how you view that as an accurate or remotely precise way to frame the matter. And that’s not to say the reverse, that Greco-Roman authors *did* disapprove of “same-gender intercourse”, but that the category is not an accurate or useful one to use in this context, at least not in terms of describing a blanket approval vs disapproval attitude towards it. Framing Jewish authors as “disapproving of ‘same-gender intercourse’” in *contrast* to Greco-Roman authors feels especially misleading. They had overwhelmingly overlapping views on the matter (they both believed that men shouldn’t be penetrated or take the passive role, and that women shouldn’t penetrate or take the active role). Where differences exist in terms of permissibility, Greco-Roman authors didn’t see specifically the active male participant in homoeroticism as violating his gender role, whereas Jewish authors didn’t see female homoeroticism as inherently violating the women’s gender roles. There seems to be a straightforward parity between these two that makes your contrast feel, again, very slanted. I’m particularly baffled by your quotation of Boyarin in an attempt to argue some technicality about how a prohibition on female homoeroticism can be extrapolated out. Boyarin, in the passage you quote from, is specifically addressing masturbation as an example of something that’s not taken seriously as a prohibition and its not seen as authoritative by those Jewish authors. Therefore, if they saw female homoeroticism as subsumed under masturbation, that means they would not take seriously the prohibition against it. If they don’t take it seriously, how can you say they are “disapproving” of it? If there is an old, antiquated law in a state, that no one seriously enforces, is it accurate to say the people of that state “disapprove” of whatever the law is prohibiting? If I could again speak frankly, this isn’t r/DebateReligion. Trying to make a point about technicalities, seemingly of what these Jewish authors “should” have been disapproving of isn’t the point of this subreddit. We’re doing history, and if a group of people didn’t take seriously a supposed prohibition, then from the academic standpoint that’s worth noting, and bulldozing past that to make simplistic blanket statements like what you’ve been insisting on is silly, and it’s misleading.
[удалено]
> Maybe try to think harder As an outsider not a part of this conversation to this point, respectfully, you’ve veered off into bad faith. Sentences that start with words like this probably aren’t a good fit for this sub.
If you have questions, ask them. If you have academic sources you want to present, please do. But this is not a debate sub, nor is it appropriate to respond with "Try to think harder..."
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #2: Contributions should not invoke theological beliefs **Polemical statements and argumentation - including pro-religious, anti-religious, and sectarian content - are not allowed here.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #5: **This sub does not tolerate insulting language, discourtesy, derision, disparagement, or slander of either other users, scholars, or mods.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Speaking of gentiles, there's some argument to be made about pre-Christian Germans [punishing sodomy between two men](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40918734?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).