LESBIANISM AND FEMALE BISEXUALITY

IN ANCIENT LITERATURE

 

A COLLECTION OF EXTRACTS

IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION FROM

GREEK, LATIN, JEWISH, AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

 

Compiled by Norman Elliott Anderson

With appendices exhibiting

 

A Chiasm in Romans 1.16-2.11

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

Preface to the posted edition

Introduction

Select bibliography

Sappho & her ancient interpreters (not yet posted)

Other Greek authors (not yet posted)

Latin authors (not yet posted)

Jewish authors (not yet posted)

Christian authors (partially posted)

Appendix A: Dubious references to lesbianism (not yet posted)

Appendix B: A chiasm in Romans 1.16-2.11 exhibited three ways

Appendix B1: The structure of Romans 1.16-2.11 in flowing format

Appendix B2: The structure of Romans 1.16-2.11, showing parallels side by side

Appendix B3: The structure of Romans 1.16-2.11, with comments

Appendix C: Romans and the Council of Jerusalem

Index of ancient voices (not yet posted)

Index of modern persons (not yet posted)

Index of selected highlighted words (not yet posted)

Feedback opportunity

 

PREFACE TO THE POSTED EDITION

Thus far I am posting only the introductory material and the portions of this book that deal directly with the first chapter of Romans. I plan to post the rest after soliciting and receiving copyright permissions. Once the whole is published, the next paragraph will make more sense.

This little book was first compiled in 1992 and went through several hard copy states in 1992-1993. Until this posting, its circulation was kept tight. It is here presented on the Web with many minor revisions. Most of those were made in order to adapt the document to hypertext, others were stylistic changes, and several were more substantive in nature. However, I have, for the time being, resisted carrying the research beyond where it was in 1993, even though a few additional references have been found. The reason is simple: to avoid further delay in making my work available to the public. My sense of urgency comes from the posting of a document entitled Homosexuality and Christianity, which assumes the work done here.

Where texts in languages that normally use non-Roman fonts are presented, they are given in transliterated form, this for the practical reason that the Web browsers used by many English speakers are not good at handling both Roman and non-Roman fonts at the same time. Furthermore, most diacrtics have been stripped off for the same reason, which means, for instance, that an "e" might represent either an episilon or an eta, or an "o" either an omicron or an omega. So, for the time being, this document does not display the structure of Romans 1.16-2.11 in the original Greek. However, the structure of that passage is presented so that with the Greek text in hand, a scholar should be able to follow along rather easily, much more easily, I should think, and more precisely than in a transliterated text lacking diacritics.

Among the additions to the bibliography that I would now make, perhaps the most significant would be:

Love between women: early Christian responses to female homoeroticism, [by] Bernadette J. Brooten (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), in: The Chicago series on sexuality, history, and society.

WARNING: This document, which was compiled as raw data for scholarly purposes, contains sexually explicit information. If you would be offended or if such information would in any way be harmful to you, please proceed no further.

 

INTRODUCTION

This is a compilation of extracts, regarding lesbianism and female bisexuality, from ancient Greek, Latin, Jewish, and Christian literature. Special attention is given to the Apostle Paul's supposed statement regarding lesbianism in Romans 1.26.

The compilation aims to be exhaustive within its scope, particularly with regard to commonly cited texts. However, exhaustiveness is an elusive goal. Some texts may occasionally be cited as referring to lesbianism, but in my mind are too dubious or cryptic for quotation here. Examples are given in Appendix A. Meanwhile, other texts are being reinterpreted as applying to lesbianism. An example would be Alcman's Louvre partheneion, which is extracted below. And then, of course, there are also the inevitable oversights.1 In general, I have erred on the side of inclusiveness, quoting texts commonly cited as referring to lesbianism, even when I think they do not refer to lesbianism at all. The most controversial of these would be Romans 1.26.

Two other qualifications of exhaustiveness:

The reader will note that, even though they are distinguished in the title of this compilation, the terms "lesbianism" and "female bisexuality" are already being lumped together under "lesbianism." That is for shorthand, but terminology does present a problem.

The options are limited.

Having discussed the weaknesses of each of the terminological options, I will not shy away from using any of them when they seem appropriate. However, I will generally prefer to use the term "lesbian" in its uncapitalized form, except with reference to women from Lesbos and most especially Sappho, who was a Lesbian in the capitalized sense, being "from Lesbos," but who might or might not have been in the uncapitalized sense.

Yet the term "lesbian" presents another problem. It, like the term "homosexual," suggests to the modern mind same-sex orientation. Several ancient voices did recognize same-sex orientation or, as in the case of Lucian's Megilla (Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3 = 291), self-identity with the opposite sex; but most referred only to particularized emotions and activities, sometimes, as in the case of Plato's Athenian stranger (Leges 636C), attributing homosexual activities not to orientation but rather to enslavement to pleasure. Furthermore, although there are reports of people involved in same-sex activity who had no interest in the opposite sex and even reports of monogamous same-sex partnerships, most homosexual activity seems not to have been exclusive and therefore might be classified as falling within a bisexual lifestyle, the principal orientation not always being apparent.

When the term "lesbian" is used herein, it should be understood as referring to a woman who happened to feel sexual or romantic attraction to one or more members of her own sex10 or who engaged in sexual activity with members of her own sex, or who was sexually oriented to members of her own sex. It is not assumed that the term "lesbian" in this sense corresponds precisely to any particular word in the ancient vocabulary.

The term "bisexual" also calls for clarification. It can refer to

It is in the last sense that the term is used here; although hermaphroditism too may be included where sexual relationships may suggest lesbianism or bisexuality.

The phenomenology of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality is actually far more complicated than these simple definitions suggest.

Charts and grids could be formed showing many of the possible combinations and degrees of difference, and each could be named. (Such grids are, in fact, needed for the sake of the synthesis and refinement of psychological and sociological research.)

However, even this sketch is oversimplified; because, for a start:

A careful classification of sexuality in either the ancient or modern world must take all of the above into account.

The range of research for this compilation was actually more extensive than the title might suggest. It included ancient Near Eastern texts,13 Greek and Roman law, non-literary texts, pictorial representations,14 and archaeological artifacts.15 It extended from the beginning of the historical record to late antiquity and in some cases, when there was a chance of throwing light upon ancient texts, well beyond. Everything found, except for archaeological artifacts, is here mentioned.

The arrangement follows these lines: Sappho and her ancient interpreters, other authors writing in Greek, authors writing in Latin, Jewish authors, and Christian authors. Each category is sub-arranged chronologically. Undated materials are placed at the end of their relevant section.

I am keenly aware that these are not mutually exclusive categories. Jewish and Christian authors were very much a part of the Mediterranean world and, during the period where we have the heaviest concentration of texts, very much a part of Greco-Roman culture, often writing in either Greek or Latin. Furthermore, most first-century Christian authors, notably Paul, might just as appropriately be classified as Jewish authors. Nevertheless, today we perceive distinct traditions and find it useful to sort our information accordingly. So cautioned, I see no need to upset the pattern and some convenience for research purposes in keeping it.

With regard to Greek and Latin authors, the translations provided are generally from the Loeb classical library (LCL). The reasons are two:

Nevertheless, LCL is far from being fully satisfactory. It is occasionally inaccurate, it embellishes, it omits or fails to translate,16 and, most significantly in the extracts presented, it is often anachronistic. It uses "Lesbian" and "Sapphic," when these translations only serve to confuse. And it uses "unnatural," which to the modern ear is suggestive of natural law, when the ancient ear, especially in non-philosophical settings, may have heard only some meaning falling between "not ordinary" and "deviant." Before leaning too heavily upon these translations, I would suggest recourse to the original texts and to other translations that may be available.

This compilation brings to light a number of details which call for greater attention in current discussion:

Although my focus has been on primary sources, I have observed a need for further methodological development with respect to the study of lesbianism in the ancient world. Anachronisms, stereotypes, agendas, confusion of words with concepts, underestimation of complexity in ancient thought, and interpretations in the interest of either sexualizing or de-sexualizing passages have all had their part in coloring results. But even for the scholar who sees past the fallacies, methodology remains a daunting problem. Lesbianism, a generally private phenomenon, is difficult enough to study in a modern society. How can one draw valid conclusions about lesbianism in the ancient world on the basis of a handful of fragments whose sources are scattered across a millennium and a wide geographical region, where mores differed from city to city? How does one penetrate to the truth when most of one's sources are second-hand reportage or fictional or satirical or imprecise or deliberately cryptic or colored by prejudice? A lot of tough work lies ahead for scholars interested in the history of sexual practices and mores. The goal must be to present an accurately balanced picture in context.

My chief interest is in moral attitudes, particularly as they compare and contrast with Paul in Romans 1.26, the one commonly supposed mention of lesbianism in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.40 I distinguish moral condemnation from disparagement, social unease, and negative narrative portrayal, although it is possible that any of these may be indicative of the moral opinions of the author.

Given the distinctions, what is noticeably scant in the literature before the time of Paul is moral condemnation of lesbian activity per se, Plato's Leges being perhaps the clearest text, although it occurs tentatively and in the context of dialog (the Athenian stranger speaking).41 Even Paul's contemporary, Seneca (4 B.C.E.-65 C.E.), doesn't quite hit the nail on the head.42 Is he referring to lesbianism (or some form thereof) or isn't he? Even if he is, he is doing so on Stoic grounds, which I believe to be a world apart from Paul's rationale for his sexual ethic, despite the similarity in expression.

Where an explanation for homosexual orientation, as distinct from activity, is sought, individuals are seen as being affected by circumstances outside of their control. Still those individuals may be regarded as defective (so Plato's Aristophanes;43 also Phaedrus44) or, later than Paul, as diseased because of astrological influences (Claudius Ptolemaeus45) or changed by the devil (Joannes Chrysostomos46).

Although the following excerpts were compiled with a particular research end in mind, I have nevertheless organized them for more general use, hoping that fellow researchers will better profit thereby.

Introduction: Notes and References

1 As the research has progressed, it has become evident that references to lesbianism, while not abundant, are far more common in ancient sources than has been generally supposed. To this day each new research approach taken reveals one or two more references; and the approaches are far from exhausted. For example, a thorough-going word search using computerized text files has yet to be done. But immediate demand for this draft, even as it stands, has precipitated an early delivery; and, in any case, one must come to a point where others may be allowed to carry the research forward.

2 The Greek verb lesbiazo, which has the lexical meaning of "do like the Lesbian women," refers not to female homosexuality but to oral sex and, if more specifically, then to fellatio. Cf. Aristophanes, Ranae 1308 and Lucian, Pseudologista 28. Until the 2nd century of the common era (C.E.), that was the principal association of a sexual sort with women from Lesbos. See, for example, Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae 920. Anacreon, fragment 358, quoted below, is a possible but unlikely exception. The earliest clear association of women from Lesbos with homosexuality appears in the 2nd century C.E. in Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.2 = 289.

Dover avoids use of the term "lesbian" with respect to the ancient world. For his rationale, see Greek homosexuality, [by] K. J. Dover (Updated and with a new postscript. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, c1989): pp. 182-184.

3 The same word was used in both Greek and Latin, tribas. A close synonym in Greek was hetairistria.

4 See, for example: The language of sex from A to Z, [by] Robert M. Goldenson [and] Kenneth N. Anderson (New York: World Almanac, 1986): p. 288.

5 In what sense is it true that female homosexuality is a subset of homosexuality? Biologically? If there are genetic influences towards homosexuality, are the same genes affecting both male and female homosexuals? I make no presumptions about the biological level of truth. I mean only that "homosexual" is often used as a collective term, the definition encompassing both males and females.

Homosexuality has been described in sexological research as "a final common behavioral pathway rather than a single entity with a single etiology." Notably "different factors are operating in male and female homosexuality." See Homosexuality: an annotated bibliography, edited by Martin S. Weinberg and Alan P. Bell (New York: Harper & Row, 1972): items 280 & 647.

6 Obviously, much the same argument as the one being made here for generally preferring the term "lesbian" to "female homosexual" with respect to the ancient world is applicable in today's world.

7 See "From sexual inversion to homosexuality: the changing medical conceptualization of female 'deviance,'" [by] George Chauncey, Jr., with postscript (1988), in: Passion and power: sexuality in history, edited by Kathy Peiss and Christina Simmons, with Robert A. Padgug (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, c1989), in series: Critical perspectives on the past. See pp. 87-117. The article was originally published in Salmagundi; no. 58-59 (fall 1982/ winter 1983).

8 See, for example: "Paul's views on the nature of women and female homoeroticism," [by] Bernadette J. Brooten, in: Immaculate & powerful: the female in sacred image and social reality, edited by Clarissa W. Atkinson, Constance H. Buchanan, and Margaret R. Miles (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, c1985), in: The Harvard women's studies in religion series. See pp. 61-87. Also "Female homoeroticism and the denial of Roman reality in Latin literature," [by] Judith P. Hallett, The Yale journal of criticism; v. 3, no. 1 (fall 1989): pp. 209-227.

9 David M. Halperin wrote, with regard to the ancient Greeks, that "Sexual pleasures other than phallic pleasures do not count in categorizing sexual contacts." See One hundred years of homosexuality and other essays on Greek love, [by] David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1990): p. 166, n83. This I believe to be an overstatement, which nevertheless may convey much that is true, both historically and linguistically. In other words, it is conceivable that some forms of what today would be considered lesbian activity were so taken for granted that the ancient world had no terms for them, rather only for specific forms of lesbian activity. Some homoerotic relations between women could then have been regarded as according to nature (kata physin) and others as beyond nature (para physin). Yet we can find casual off-hand remarks that suggest that sexual passion between women was not common, e.g. Melite &emdash; a female character in Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon 5.25.7 &emdash; complaining to her reluctant male lover, Clitophon:

"You have clung to me and kissed me, and then risen from my side as passionless as another woman." From S. Gaselee (Rev. 1969) in LCL.

10 Romantic love is often inadequately analyzed and assessed in homosexual studies. The hermeneutical and ethical implications are significant. Of the many kinds of love, some distinguish between lust and romantic love, or between friendship love, romantic love, and domestic love. Some do not. When Leaena tells Clonarium that "I love [philo] you as much as I love any woman," what did she mean? (See Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.1. I presume the answer is friendship love.) When lesbian sexual activity is condemned, for example in most Christian moralizing, does that mean that romantic feelings of one woman for another, without sexual expression, are supposed to be a sign of human depravity? Is it mere legalism and a denial of the spiritual dimensions of human acts to call acts but not feelings sinful? For the moment, I am working at the historical roots and not with subsequent refinements and ethical concerns, which nevertheless exist in dialectic with this sort of inquiry.

11 The so-called "fag hag" or "fruit fly" would be an example of the latter. See Robert M. Goldenson [and] Kenneth N. Anderson (1986): p. [89], 103.

12 For example, with regard to polygamy, see the chart of types of modern non-monogamous marital relationships in The new faithful: a polyfidelity primer, written and edited by Ryam Nearing (Rev. and expanded ed. Eugene, Oregon: Polyfidelitous Educational Productions, 1989): p. 10.

13 For a useful survey, see "Incest, sodomy and bestiality in the ancient Near East," [by] Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., in Orient and Occident: essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973), in series: Alter Orient und Altes Testament. See pp. [81]-90. However, Hoffner failed to distinguish the treatment of male homosexuality (see Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13) and the non-treatment of lesbianism in ancient Israelite law (p. [81]). Another error: He overlooked the punishment for bestiality as named in Leviticus 20:15 (p. 90).

Take note also of "Some aspects of ancient Egyptian sexual life," by Lise Manniche, Acta Orientalia; 38 (1977): pp. 11-23, especially 14-15. Reprinted in Homosexuality in the ancient world, edited with introductions by Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson (New York: Garland Pub., 1992): pp. 327-339. She reports that:

"Of female homosexuality, commonly called lesbianism, there is but little evidence in ancient Egypt" (p. 14).

She then goes on to suggest two possible texts:

  • The Book of the Dead in Papyrus Nestanebtasheru (circa 970 B.C.E.), which contains in the Negative Confession a denial of having had sexual relations with the wife of a male. Manniche refers to "Unrecognized sportings," [by] Hans Goedicke, in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt; 6 (1967): pp. 97-102, specifically p. 99, n22, which notes as particularly curious "the variant in N. I n nk.i tryt hmwt. As it is contained in a text written for a lady, the passage would be meaningful only if it refers to lesbian practices. Tryt, thus, might be conjectured to denote a di[l]do, repeatedly attested in Greek erotic literature." But according to Manniche (pp. 14-15), "the text was in all probability copied from a 'male' version."
  • Papyrus Carlsberg XIII, b, 2, 33 (2nd century C.E. or later). This is a passage in a dream book, which deals with the dreams of women. Manniche (p. 15) translates it so: "If a woman has intercourse with her, she will experience a bad fate." For Demotic text with German translation, see Demotische Traumdeutung (Pap. Carlsberg XIII und XIV verso), [herausgegeben von] Aksel Volten (Kopenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1942), in series: Analectica Aegyptiaca; v. 3. At pp. 86-87 and plate 2.

The investigation is continued in Sexual life in ancient Egypt, [by] Lise Manniche (London; New York: KPI, 1987): pp. 22-27, especially figures 12-15, where she provides pictorial evidence that "Without exactly accusing[!] them of being lesbians it is obvious that women enjoyed being touched by other women" (p. 24).

14 For pictorial representations that may hint at lesbianism, see: The reign of the phallus: sexual politics in ancient Athens, [by] Eva C. Keuls ([2nd ed.], 1st University of California Press ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993): figures 72, 78, 81 (this is the one that Keuls herself suggests), 134, 140, 150, 151, 232, and Appendix 99. Also K. J. Dover (1989): CE34 and R207.

15 Major collections of sexual artifacts may be found at the British Library (e.g. the Payne Knight Collection) and at the Museum of Corinth. Supposedly, the principal artifact suggestive of lesbianism would be the dildo = olisbos (Greek) = baubon (Greek) = fascinum (Latin) of the double-headed sort, such as the dangling one pictured in K. J. Dover (1985): R223. However:

  • The double-headed phallus was a sacred symbol, sometimes used as an amulet, presumably a form of the scaevola mentioned by Varro, De lingua Latina 7.97. (Cf. Epigram 11 of "Epigrams ascribed to Martial," in Walter C. A. Ker, 1920, LCL. See pp. 526-527.) For illustrations, see A discourse on the worship of Priapus and its connection with the mystic theology of the ancients, by Richard Payne Knight (1786): plates 2 & 3; compare plate 7; and The worship of the generative powers during the Middle Ages of Western Europe, by Thomas Wright (1866): plates 2 & 3; compare plate 12. The two titles are collected together in Sexual symbolism: a history of phallic worship, [with an] introduction by Ashley Montagu (New York: Julian Press, 1957).
  • The ancient descriptions that we possess of dildo use by lesbians suggest the strapping on of a single-headed dildo. See especially Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3 and Pseudo-Lucian, Erotes 28.
  • And dildo use in sacred rites of women apparently involved either a single-headed dildo or a series thereof. See, possibly, Juvenal, Saturae 6.306-313 and R. P. Knight (1786, reprinted 1957): p. [12]. The latter is an illustration, apparently from the Payne Knight Collection, of two women who are employing dildos attached to a single oval ring, perhaps 4'3" x 3'1", which is upright on a pointed pole, encompassing a god, apparently Cupid.

    The Oval Ring

    Illustration from R. P. Knight (1786, reprinted 1957): p. [12]

16 The translation of Juvenal by G. G. Ramsay (1940) in LCL is so bowdlerized that it had to be abandoned as useless for this compilation. The translation of Plautus, Truculentus, by Paul Nixon (1938) in LCL was abandoned because it obscures the sexual allusions.

17 Bisexuality in the ancient world, [by] Eva Cantarella; translated by Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992): pp. 78, 164.

18 A sizable body of literature by ancient women once existed, and guesses are sometimes made regarding homoerotic content. This note will focus on female poets.

  • Athenaeus reported in Deipnosophistai 13.600f that Alcman (7th century B.C.E.) was said to have fallen "immoderately in love with Megalostratê, who was a poetess and able to attract lovers to her by her conversation." From Charles Burton Gulick (1937) in LCL).
  • Philostratus reported in Vita Apollonii 1.30 that Damophyla (6th century B.C.E.), an associate of Sappho's, was "said to have gathered a circle of girls about her and to have composed love-poems and hymns, as Sappho did." See Greek lyric, with an English translation by David A. Campbell (1982) in LCL; Sappho, testimony 21.
  • According to the lexicographer, Hesychius, Charixena (5th century B.C.E.) was said to have been "a composer of erotic songs." See Greek lyric IV, edited and translated by David A. Campbell (1992) in LCL.
  • Erinna (possibly 6th century B.C.E. but more probably end of the 4th century B.C.E.), and Nossis (flourished circa 300 B.C.E.) composed poems, no longer extant (except for a handful of epigrams found in the Anthologia Graeca), some of which, it has been suggested, may have been inspired by same-sex love.

See Sappho of Lesbos, her life and times, by Arthur Weigall (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1932): pp. 107-109. And Sex variant women in literature: a historical and quantitative survey, by Jeannette H. Foster (New York: Vantage Press, c1956): p. 24.

Erinna and Nossis were among the nine divine-voiced women mentioned in Anthologia Graeca 9.26. The others were Sappho (circa 600 B.C.E.), Telesilla (circa 450 B.C.E.), Myrtis (5th century B.C.E.), Corinna (5th century B.C.E.), Praxilla (flourished 451 B.C.E.), Anyte (early 3rd century B.C.E.), and Moero (circa 300 B.C.E.).

19 Given Philaenis' association with lesbianism, one wonders whether other ancient writers on love-making, particularly female authors, might have described lesbian practices.

The Suda Alpha 4261 (s. v. Astyanassa) mentions:

"Astyanassa, maid of Helen the wife of Menelaus, who was the first to invent the different positions in the act of love. She wrote 'Of Erotic Postures'; and was followed and imitated by Philaenis and Elephantiné [Elephantis], who carried further the series of suchlike obscenities."

The translation, by Julian Smithson, is from Manual of classical erotology = De figuris veneris, by Fred. Chas. Forberg (Manchester: Julian Smithson, 1884): v. 1, pp. 6-9, n2.

Another woman associated with erotic postures was Cyrené, whether as writer or merely as a famous hetaera is not clear. She was mentioned by Aristophanes, Ranae 1328; Thesmophoriazusae 98; and by Suda Delta 1442 (s. v. Dodekamechanon). See Forberg (1884): v. 1, pp. 12-13, n5.

Yet others may include the scholar, Pamphila of Epidaurus (see Suda Pi 139, s. v. Pamphile) and the mid-wife, Salpe (see Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 7.321f-322a; cf. Pliny, Naturalis historia 28 (7) 38; 28 (18) 66; 28 (23) 82; 32 (47) 135; 32 (51) 140).

20 The writings of Pierre Louÿs presented Greek female voices, at first without indication that they were fictions and that they did not exist in Greek at all. Thus Bilitis, supposedly of the 6th century B.C.E., and her friend Mnasidika (a name taken from Sappho, fragment 82, following the numbering of David A. Campbell, 1982, in LCL) in Les chansons de Bilitis, traduites du grec (1894). Regarding lesbianism, see especially §§46ff. For English translation by Mitchell S. Buck, see The collected works of Pierre Louÿs (New York: Liveright, 1932).

For an edition of Les chansons de Bilitis replete with ancient illustrations, see the edition "accompagnée de 300 gravures par [Gabriel] Notor [pseudonym for Chevalier de Roton]" (Paris: Charpentier et Fasquelle, 1928). Illustrations of mildly homoerotic contact between women are presented on pp. 49, [124], [132], and [146].

21 An example might be Lucian's Hetairikoi dialogoi 5. His account sounds authentic in terms of modern psychological and sociological studies, e.g. regarding the relative strength of the orientation of different types of lesbians (butch, femme, etc.). See Martin S. Weinberg and Alan P. Bell (1972): items 937, 945 & 1047. And the source mentioned for the legend about Tiresias was a woman, Ismenodora, rather than a male author, such as Ovid.

The last detail is significant, because a distinct literary tradition existed among women. Sappho in fragment 160 and Corinna in fragment 655 both indicated their intended audience to be women. Pausanius said that:

"Although Telesilla had a fine reputation among women on other grounds also, she won even greater honour for her poetry" (Periégésis tés Hellados 2.20.8 = Tellesilla, testimony 4).

And Corinna in fragment 664a expressed her disapproval of Myrtis, a woman, competing with the male poet, Pindar; although evidently Corinna herself competed with him and won. See her testimonia 1-4. All of the passages mentioned in this paragraph may be found in Greek lyric I (1982) and IV (1992) in LCL. I suspect that this distinct literary tradition can be traced up to Lucian's time.

22 Compare Greek defixion 151. Typically, it seems, a third party was used for such incantations, that is, spells addressing love-life. See, for example, Petronius, Satyricon 17.131 and 19.134 (Oenothea speaking in the latter); also Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 4 (Melitta and Bacchis speaking). The third party as surrogate may be a productive avenue for research.

23 For discussion of other possible bonding ceremonies, see Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque, [par] Claude Calame (Roma: Ateneo & Bizarri, 1977), in series: Filologia e critica; 20-21.

24 For example, in: Porneia: on desire and the body in antiquity, [by] Aline Rousselle; translated by Felicia Pheasant (Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell, c1988): p. 94.

25 Alcman, Louvre partheneion; Sappho, fragments 1, 2, 31, 94; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.666-797.

26 Seneca, Epistulae morales 95.21; Alciphron, Epistolae hetairikai 14; Augustine, Epistulae 211.14.

27 Horace, Epistulae 1.19.28; compare his Epodon 5.41-46 where he attributes "masculine desire" to Folia of Ariminum; Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5; Firmicus Maternus, Matheseos 7.25.1 & 4; Caelius Aurelianus, Tardarum passionum 4.9.132-133.

28 Iphis in Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.666-797; and Achilles in Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3.

29 Perhaps Sappho, fragment 31; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.715-764.

Here is a partial list of ancient references to sex change:

  • Apollodorus (born circa 180 B.C.E., although the work here cited is probably from the 1st or 2nd century C.E.)
    • Tiresias (Bibliotheca 3.6.7). For many other references to the double sex change of Tiresias, see James George Frazer's note on the passage (1921) in LCL.
    • Caeneus (Bibliotheca epitoma 1.22).
  • Virgil (70-19 B.C.E.), Aeneid 6.448 = 6.591-592, on Caeneus.
  • Ovid (43 B.C.E.-17 C.E.).
    • Tiresias (Metamorphoses 3.316-348).
    • Sithon. The story might be accounted for in this way: The country with the masculine name of Sithon adopted the feminine name of Thracia. See Metamorphoses 4.280 and the explanation of that passage in the translation by Henry T. Riley (London: George Bell, 1887): p. 132.
    • Hermaphroditus (Metamorphoses 4.285-388).
    • Iphis, near Cnosus (Metamorphoses 9.666-797).
    • Caenis --> Caeneus (Metamorphoses 12.168-209).
  • Elder Pliny (23/24-79 C.E.), Naturalis historia 7.(4).36.
    • Girl --> Boy in Casinum.
    • Arescusa with husband --> Arescon with wife.
    • Girl --> Boy at Smyrna.
    • Woman --> Lucius Constitius of Thysdritum with husband.
  • Lucian (120-180 C.E.), Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3, regarding Tiresias.
  • Gellius (circa 130-circa 180 C.E.), Noctis Atticae 9.4.13-15.
    • Caenis --> Caeneus.
    • Girl --> Boy in Casinum.
    • Arecusa --> Arescontes of Argos.
    • Girl --> Boy at Smyrna.
    • Woman --> Lucius Cossutius of Thysdrus with husband.
  • Tertullian (circa 160-circa 240 C.E.), De pallio 4.2, on Achilles.
  • Hyginus (2nd century?), Genealogiae.
    • Caenis --> Caeneus. (Fabulae 14).
    • Tiresias (Fabulae 75).
  • Ausonius (d. circa 395 C.E.), Epigrammata 76, quoting a girl.
    • Ceanis --> Boy.
    • Tiresias.
    • Hermaphroditus.
    • Lad --> Maid in Campanian Beneventum.

30 Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3.

For the myth of the merger in one body of Hermaphroditus and the nymph, Salmacis, see Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.288-388. Hermaphroditus was described by Ausonius in Epigrammata 102 (English translation by Hugh G. Evelyn White, 1921, in LCL) as:

"compound alike in name and frame, combining either sex, complete in neither, neutral in love, unable to enjoy either passion."

The Elder Pliny equated hermaphrodites with androgyni in Naturalis historia 7 (3) 34, thus fusing two separate mythic traditions, which might better be studied unfused. His representation of androgyni in 7 (2) 15 seems not quite so unhappy as Ausonius' representation of Hermaphroditus.

31 Ovid, Tristia 2.365; Plutarch, Lycurgus 18.4; Maximus of Tyre, Philosophoumena 18.9.

32 Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3; Alciphron, Epistolae hetairikai 14.

33 Livy, Ab urbe condita libri 39.8-19; Plutarch, Caesar 9-10; Juvenal, Saturae 6.306-345; compare Euripides, Bakkai 402-415.

Paul Brandt has suggested that:

"The festival of Aphrodite Anosia ..., celebrated in Thessaly, may have had a homosexual background, since men were excluded, although details are wanting &emdash; the only thing we know is that erotic flagellations also played a part."

See Sexual life in ancient Greece, by Hans Licht [pseudonym] (London: George Routledge, 1932): p. 130. The background may be found in Plutarch, Erotikos = Amatorius 21 = 767f-768a, where the goddess is called Aphrodites androphonou, and in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 13.589a-c. See also the scholiast on Aristophanes, Plutus 179. Since none of these sources mentions either a festival or flagellation, I remain puzzled about where Brandt found his information. I am also skeptical of any homosexual component, since Aphrodite was called Androphonou ("the Murderous") and Anosia ("the Sinful") due to the murder of Laïs in the temple of Aphrodite, the motive being heterosexual jealousy on the part of the women of Thessaly. They were envious and jealous of her, in Plutarch because of her beauty and in Athenaeus because she had fallen in love with a Thessalian named Pausanius.

34 Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.1-2.

35 Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.1-3.

36 Alciphron, Epistolae hetairikai 14; Synesius, De providentia 13 & 17; Caelius Aurelianus, Tardarum passionum 4.9.132. Note that according to legend, Sappho loved not only women, but also males, most notably Phaon. See Sappho, testimonies 3 & 23; fragment 211, using the numbering of David A. Campbell (1982) in LCL; and Ovid, Heroides 15. Some of her lyrics were oriented to males, e.g. fragments 102, 115, 121, 138, and 140. And, in fragment 132, she sang of a daughter, Cleis. Gellius stated that she had nine children. See Noctis Atticae 20.7 = 2.301 = Sappho, fragment 205. Suda Sigma 107 (s. v. Sappho) mentions a husband, Cercylas.

For a philosophical defense of bisexuality that was equally applicable to males and females, see Plutarch, Erotikos = Amatorius 21 = 766E-767C.

37 Lucian, Hetairikoi dialogoi 5.3; perhaps Juvenal, Saturae 6.306-313; Pseudo-Lucian, Erotes 28; Suda Omicron 169 (s. v. Olisbos).

38 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.80; compare Papyrus Carlsberg XIII, b, 2, 33, which is quoted in a footnote above.

39 A similar remark is made by Jeannette H. Foster (1956): p. 29. She notes the great variety of persons and the range of experiences.

40 For a survey in the form of a list, see "Biblical references to homosexuality," in Homosexuality and the Judeo-Christian tradition: an annotated bibliography, [by] Tom Horner (Metuchen, N. J.: American Theological Library Assn. [sic], Scarecrow Press, 1981): p. 112-114. For real and purported biblical references to male homosexuality classified by strand, see my "Excursus on Male Homosexuality in the Bible."

41 Plato, Leges 636C.

42 Seneca, Epistulae morales 95.21.

43 Plato, Symposium 191D-E.

44 Phaedrus, Fabularum Aesopiarum 4.16.

45 Claudius Ptolemaeus, Tetrabiblos 3.14.171-172 and 4.5.187.

46 Joannes Chrysostomos, In Epistolam ad Romanos, 4.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Other titles are mentioned in the footnotes, but the following were especially helpful because of their array of sources.

 

Bailey (1955)

Homosexuality and the Western Christian tradition, by Derrick Sherwin Bailey. London: Longmans, Green, 1955.
 
Boswell (1980)
Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, [by] John Boswell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
 
Brooten (Boston, 1985)
"Paul's views on the nature of women and female homoeroticism," [by] Bernadette J. Brooten. In: Immaculate & powerful: the female in sacred image and social reality, edited by Clarissa W. Atkinson, Constance H. Buchanan, and Margaret R. Miles. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, c1985. In: The Harvard women's studies in religion series.
Reprinted in: Homosexuality and religion and philosophy, edited with introductions by Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson. New York: Garland, 1992. In series: Studies in homosexuality v. 12.
 
Brooten (Kalamazoo, 1985)
"Patristic interpretations of Romans 1:26," [by] Bernadette J. Brooten. Studia patristica; XVIII, v. 1 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1985): pp. 287-291.
 
Calame (1977)
Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque. I: Morphologie, fonction religieuse et sociale, [par] Claude Calame. Roma: Ateneo & Bizzarri, c1977.
See especially §4.3, "Relations homoérotiques dans le chÏur lyrique" (pp. 420-439).
 
Cantarella (1992)
Bisexuality in the ancient world, by Eva Cantarella; translated by Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
 
Dover (1989)
Greek homosexuality, [by] K. J. Dover. Updated and with a new postscript. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, c1989.
 
Dynes (1992)
Homosexuality in the ancient world, edited with introductions by Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson. New York: Garland Pub., 1992. In series: Studies in homosexuality; v. 1.
Reprints chapters and articles from scholarly sources.
 
Forberg (1884)
Manual of classical erotology = De figuris Veneris, by Fred. Chas. Forberg [Friedrich Karl Forberg, 1770-1848]; Latin text and literal English translation [Julian Smithson, the translator]. Manchester: Privately printed for Viscount Julian Smithson M. A., and friends, 1884.
I have used a facsimile edition: New York: Grove Press, 1966.
See especially chapter 6, "De tribadibus = Of tribads" (v. 2, pp. [108]-167).
 
Foster (1956)
Sex variant women in literature: a historical and quantitative survey, by Jeannette H. Foster. New York: Vantage Press, c1956.
See especially chapter 1, "The ancient record" (pp. [17]-29, [355]).
 
Hallett (1989)
"Female homoeroticism and the denial of Roman reality in Latin literature," [by] Judith P. Hallett. The Yale journal of criticism; v. 3, no. 1 (fall 1989): pp. [209]-227.
Reprinted in Dynes (1992): pp. 179-197.
 
Ide (1985)
The city of Sodom & homosexuality in Western religious thought to 630 CE, by Arthur Frederick Ide. Dallas: Monument Press, 1985.
 
Krenkel (1989)
"Tribaden," [von] Werner Krenkel, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Wilhelm-Pieck-Universität Rostock; 38 (1989): pp. 49-53.
Reprinted in Dynes (1992): pp. 291-300.
 
Pastre (1987)
Athènes et "le péril Saphique": homosexualité féminine en Grèce ancienne, [par] Geneviève Pastre. 2e éd. Paris: Librairie "Les Mots à la bouche," c1987. In series: Les Octaviennes.
 
Scroggs (1983)
New Testament and homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
 
Vorberg (1965)
Glossarium eroticum, herausgegeben von Gaston Vorberg. Hanau Main: Müller & Kiepenheuer, c1965.

 

The set cited frequently as LCL is: The Loeb classical library, founded by James Loeb. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

 

 

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS1

 

Paul the Apostle (died circa 65 C.E.)

Romans 1.22-27:

22. Claiming to be wise, they became foolish; 23. and they converted the glory of the immortal God into a [mere] resemblance, [specifically]2 an image of mortal humanity and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. 24. Therefore God turned them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity such that their bodies might be degraded among them, 25. those who3 exchanged the truth of God for falsehood and worshiped by serving4 that which is created instead of the one who created, who is blessed forever! Amen.5 26. For this, God turned them over to passions, [I mean] degradations6 for which both their females exchanged the natural intercourse for that which is beyond nature [para physin] 27. and also similarly the males having abandoned the natural intercourse with the female were kindled in their desire towards one another, males in males perpetrating upon themselves indecency and receiving back the due which was binding their error to themselves.7

ANNOTATION: If, as I think is the case, Paul's principal referent is the Holiness Code of Leviticus as imported into Gentile Christianity via the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25), the mention of the "unnatural intercourse" of women may refer to bestiality (Leviticus 18.19; 20.18) and other actions for which women are specifically held accountable in the Holiness Code. Male homosexuality is mentioned in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18.24; 20.23). Lesbianism is not.

Notes and References

1 For an anthology of Christian texts on homosexuality more generally, see John Boswell (1980): Appendix 2, pages 355-402.

2 "Specifically" or "namely," because of an epexegetic genitive. Cf. Biblical Greek illustrated by examples, by Maximilian Zerwick (English edition, adapted from the 4th Latin edition by Joseph Smith. Rome, 1963), in series: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici; 114. See § 45.

3 The antecedent is found in verse 18, namely, "people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." See Appendix B3.

4 By this translation, "worshiped and served" is being taken as a hendiadys. (For the definition of "hendiadys," see above.)

5 Paul is putting this "Amen," sandwiched by a statement of blessing and a statement of curse, at the center of a lengthy chiasm (that is, an A-B-B-A pattern), the recognition of which may be helpful in sorting out his meanings. See Appendix B.

6 Admittedly, this is an unusual translation. The word atimias ("degradations") in this context is usually taken as a genitive singular followed by an article. Here I am venturing it as an accusative plural in attributive apposition followed by a relative pronoun. Consult Herbert Weir Smyth (1956): §§ 916, 991b, 2539.

7 Translation mine, based on The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland ... [et al.] (3rd ed., corrected. [S.l.]: United Bible Societies, 1983). For the fuller passage, in the New Revised Standard Version (1989), see Appendix B.

 

 

APPENDIX B

A Chiasm in Romans 1.16-2.11 Exhibited Three Ways

 

A chiasm is a rhetorical convention with a symmetrical structure, a type of parallelism which appears in its simplest form as an A-B-B-A pattern.

For a classic study of chiasms, see:

With regard to chiasms in Paul's epistle to the Romans, see especially:

One work that did find a chiasm Romans 1 is:

For other discussion of the literary structure of Romans 1, with valuable bibliographical references, see:

For a discussion of the structure of Romans 1 as it relates to homosexuality, see:

Below is exhibited three ways -- flowing, showing parallels side by side, and with comments to the side -- the largely chiastic (or possibly concentric) structure of Romans 1.16-2.11. The particular edition used below for the translation is:

For the Greek text, it is:

APPENDIX B1

The Structure of Romans 1.16-2.11 in Flowing Format

 

A

1.16. For I am not [ou gar] ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith,

B

to the Jew first and also to the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

C1

1.17. For in it the righteousness of God [theou] is revealed [apokalyptetai]

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

through faith for faith;

C3 &emdash; Quotation

as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith" [Habakkuk 2.4].

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.18. For the (Ca) wrath [orge] of God is revealed from heaven against (Cb) all ungodliness and wickedness [adikian] of those [anthropon] who by their wickedness suppress (Cc) the truth [aletheian].

D1

1.19. For what can be known [gnoston] about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

1.20. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

D2

So they are without excuse [anapologetous];

E

1.21. for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless [asynetos] minds were darkened.

1.22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

F

1.23. and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [eikonos] resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

1.24. Therefore God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,

G

to the degrading of their bodies among themselves [auton en autois],

H

1.25. because they [hoitines] exchanged [metellaxan] the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,

Transition &emdash; Statement of Blessing

who is blessed forever! Amen.

Transition &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.26. For this reason God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to degrading passions.

H

Their women exchanged [metellaxan] natural intercourse [physiken chresin] for unnatural [para physin],

G

1.27. and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse [physiken chresin] with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men - and received in their own persons [auton en heautois] the due penalty for their error.

Note the internal chiasm here (words have been slightly rearranged to conform a bit more closely to the Greek):

F

1.28. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

E

1.29. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,

1.30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,

1.31. foolish [asynetous], faithless, heartless, ruthless.

D1

1.32. They know [epignontes] God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die &emdash; yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

D2

2.1. Therefore you have no excuse [anapologetos], whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

C1

2.2. You say, "We know that God's [theou] judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with (Cc) truth [aletheian]."

Suggestion of Curse

2.3. Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

2.4. Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?

Suggestion of Blessing

Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

C4

2.5. But by your (Cb) hard and impenitent heart you are storing up (Ca) wrath [orgen] for yourself on the day of wrath,

C1

when God's [theou] righteous judgment will be revealed [apokalypseos].

C3 &emdash; Quotation

2.6. For he will repay according to each one's deeds [Psalm 62.12]:

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

2.7. to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

2.8. while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not (Cc) the truth [aletheia] but (Cb) wickedness [adikia], there will be (Ca) wrath [orge)] and fury.

B

Statement of Curse

2.9. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Statement of Blessing

2.10. but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

A

2.11. For God shows no [ou gar] partiality.

 

APPENDIX B2

 

The Structure of Romans 1.16-2.11 Showing Parallels Side by Side

 

A

1.16. For I am not [ou gar] ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith,

A

2.11. For God shows no [ou gar] partiality.

 

B

to the Jew first and also to the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

 

B

Statement of Curse

2.9. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Statement of Blessing

2.10. but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

C1

1.17. For in it the righteousness of God [theou] is revealed [apokalyptetai]

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

through faith for faith;

C3 &emdash; Quotation

as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith" [Habakkuk 2.4].

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.18. For the (Ca) wrath [orge] of God is revealed from heaven against (Cb) all ungodliness and wickedness [adikian] of those [anthropon] who by their wickedness suppress (Cc) the truth [aletheian].

C1

2.2. You say, "We know that God's [theou] judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with (Cc) truth [aletheian]."

Suggestion of Curse

2.3. Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

2.4. Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?

Suggestion of Blessing

Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

C4

2.5. But by your (Cb) hard and impenitent heart you are storing up (Ca) wrath [orgen] for yourself on the day of wrath,

C1

when God's [theou] righteous judgment will be revealed [apokalypseos].

C3 &emdash; Quotation

2.6. For he will repay according to each one's deeds [Psalm 62.12]:

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

2.7. to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

2.8. while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not (Cc) the truth [aletheia] but (Cb) wickedness [adikia], there will be (Ca) wrath [orge)] and fury.

 

D1

1.19. For what can be known [gnoston] about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

1.20. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

D2

So they are without excuse [anapologetous];

D1

1.32. They know [epignontes] God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die &emdash; yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

D2

2.1. Therefore you have no excuse [anapologetos], whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

E

1.21. for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless [asynetos] minds were darkened.

1.22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

E

1.29. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,

1.30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,

1.31. foolish [asynetous], faithless, heartless, ruthless.

F

1.23. and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [eikonos] resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

1.24. Therefore God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,

F

1.28. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

G

to the degrading of their bodies among themselves [auton en autois],

G

1.27. and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse [physiken chresin] with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men - and received in their own persons [auton en heautois] the due penalty for their error.

Note the internal chiasm here (words have been slightly rearranged to conform a bit more closely to the Greek):

H

1.25. because they [hoitines] exchanged [metellaxan] the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,

H

Their women exchanged [metellaxan] natural intercourse [physiken chresin] for unnatural [para physin],

Transition &emdash; Statement of Blessing

who is blessed forever! Amen.

Transition &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.26. For this reason God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to degrading passions.

APPENDIX B3

 

The Structure of Romans 1.16-2.11, with Comments

 

Text

Comments

A

1.16. For I am not [ou gar] ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith,

 

B

to the Jew first and also to the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

 

C1

1.17. For in it the righteousness of God [theou] is revealed [apokalyptetai]

 

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

through faith for faith;

 

John Forbes notes a parallelism between Romans 1.17 and 3.21-22, saying that they are complementary of each other because Paul's "manner is not to repeat himself without any advance in his meaning." See Analytical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought by the aid of parallelism, by John Forbes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868): p. 122. This, by the way, was also Forbes' understanding of parallel passages in Pauline chiasms. See pp. 68-89.

 

C3 &emdash; Quotation

as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith" [Habakkuk 2.4].

 

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.18. For the (Ca) wrath [orge] of God is revealed from heaven against (Cb) all ungodliness and wickedness [adikian] of those [anthropon] who by their wickedness suppress (Cc) the truth [aletheian].

 

D1

1.19. For what can be known [gnoston] about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

1.20. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

 

 

Note the internal structure of 1.20, here following the order of the Greek (using my rough translation):

A - For his invisible attributes,
B- from the creation of the cosmos,
B- in the things that have been made
A- are understood, perceived, namely both his
a - eternal power and
b - divinity.
 

D2

So they are without excuse [anapologetous];

 

E

1.21. for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless [asynetos] minds were darkened.

1.22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

 

 

Note the internal structure of 1.21-22:

A- for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,
B - but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless [asynetos] minds were darkened.
A - Claiming to be wise,
B - they became fools;

Paul is speaking of a completed action in the past. The allusion may be to Leviticus 18.3 and 18.24-30, regarding the "abominable customs" of the Egyptians and the Canaanites. This connection finds credence when we understand that the Epistle to the Romans parallels the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in moving from ethnicity to inclusion of Gentiles and from the question of circumcision for Gentile believers to cultic purity. See Appendix C.

 

F

1.23. and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [eikonos] resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

1.24. Therefore God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,

 

The word eikonos is singular, despite the NRSV rendering as images. Could Paul be talking about a composite image?

The reference to animals may be an allusion to Genesis 1.26. For discussion, see "A reminiscence of the Old Testament at Romans i.23," [by] Niels Hydahl, New Testament studies; v. 2, no. 4 (May 1956).

 

G

to the degrading of their bodies among themselves [auton en autois],

 

H

1.25. because they [hoitines] exchanged [metellaxan] the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,

 

The hoitines in Romans 1.25 has its antecedent in the autois in 1.24, which in turn has its antecedent in the autous in 1.24, which in turn finds its antecedent in the anthropon of 1.18, namely, "people who suppress the truth by unrighteousness."

The word hoitines appears also in 1.32 and 2.15. Does that suggest parallel structuring? The chiasm as presented here would suggest that parallel structuring may be true of 1.32 and 2.15, but not of 1.25. For discussion of hoitines in Romans, see "Notes sur l'exégèse de l'épître aux Romains. I, La structure littéraire de Rom 1,22-32," [par] S. Lyonnet, Biblica; v. 38, fasc. 1 (1957): pp. 35-40, specifically 38-39.

 

Transition &emdash; Statement of Blessing

who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

Compare especially Psalm 88.52 or 53 (LXX) = 89.53 (MT) and Romans 9.5.

Pivot (in alternative structure)

Amen.

 

The "Amen" may be read as belonging to the statement of blessing, thus preserving a true chiasm. But it could be separated and placed at the center of the entire structure of the passage, thus producing a concentric pattern, as shown here.

 

Transition &emdash; Statement of Curse

1.26. For this reason God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to degrading passions.

 

H

Their women exchanged [metellaxan] natural intercourse [physiken chresin] for unnatural [para physin],

 

 

For similar terminology by other Jewish authors of the period, see Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.39 = III.vii = 306, and Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.273-275 = 2.38.

Philo applies the phrase, para physin, to pederasty (pederastein); and Josephus applies it both to "sodomy" (the translation of H. St. J. Thackeray, 1926, in LCL of arrenon mixeis, which literally means "mixing males") and to the marriage of brother and sister.

It is doubtful that Paul is referring to lesbianism, for four reasons:

  • Lesbianism is not mentioned in Paul's chief sources for statements about conduct, namely the Hebrew Scriptures, the sayings of Jesus, and the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. .
  • Lesbianism was not a prominent moral issue in the ancient world up to the time of Paul.
  • Plenty of other offenses are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, and there was no apparent occasion for Paul to mention lesbianism rather than one of these others. The strength of Paul's remark would call for extraordinary explanation if it did apply principally to lesbianism.
  • The parallel in the chiasm has to do with creatures, which, by way of euphemistic circumlocution, suggests bestiality, which is prohibited in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18.23 and 20.15-16). Philo discusses bestiality in De specialibus legibus 3.43-50 = III.viii = 307-308, where he asserts (in 3.48) that the Mosaic prohibition was in conformity with nature (akolouthou te physei). The tendency of modern interpreters to regard Romans 1.26 as parallel chiefly to 1.27 instead of to 1.25 has obscured the chiasm itself.

A negative argument may also be considered. What rabbinic principle of exegesis would Paul have employed to apply the levitical prohibition of male homosexuality to women? Of the seven middoth of Hillel and the thirteen of Ishmael (Sifra, introduction 1.7; Tosefta Sanhedrin 7.11; Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 37.10 = 32a-b), seemingly the most likely to be applicable would be the first, qal wa-homer, that is, reasoning from a lenient case to a strict case. Applying that principle, if the man is condemned, "all the more so" would a woman receive the same condemnation. (Similar reasoning is employed by John Chrysostom. See In Epistolam ad Romanos, homily 4.) But it is not at all obvious that Paul regards the woman to be the stricter case. If anything, with regard to homosexuality, she would have been regarded as the more lenient case. (So it is, even in Maimonides, despite his strictness with regard to sexual desire. See Mishneh Torah, Kedushah, Issurei bi'ah 21.8) Furthermore, instances can be found both in the Torah and in Paul where women and men are treated differently. In Paul's mind, equality between the sexes "in Christ" (Galatians 3.28) in some ways may have transcended cultural factors and, with regard to cultic purity, may have presupposed different treatment of the sexes &emdash; apocalyptic purity being a precondition for being "in Christ," although less burdensome than the full corpus of Judaic purity regulations (Acts 15.28). To summarize, Paul would not have been stricter with women; and even his sense of equality between the sexes "in Christ" would have presupposed a different treatment of women with regard to homosexuality. In other words, for us to assume rabbinic exegesis on the part of Paul should lead us away from reading his statement as referring to lesbianism, unless evidence can be adduced that Paul was interpreting a more general passage, such as we find to be the case, centuries later, in Sifra, Aharei mot 8.8. (It is remotely conceivable that, given what I take to be Paul's allusion to Leviticus 18.3, we have in Romans 1 the earliest testimony of the sort of interpretation found later in Sifra.)

Another possible referent outside of the Holiness Code of Leviticus, but probably covered by it in a broad sense, is the use of idols as dildos. See Ezekiel 23.37 and the interpretation of 1 Kings 15.13 = 2 Chronicles 15.16 by Rab Judah (died 299) and Rab Joseph (died 333) in Talmud Bavli, Abodah zarah 44a.

 

G

1.27. and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse [physiken chresin] with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men - and received in their own persons [auton en heautois] the due penalty for their error.

 

 

What is being compared is "exchanged the natural intercourse" and "having abandoned the natural intercourse," not necessarily the specific activity, contrary to A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, by C. E. B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), in series: The international critical commentary. See v. 1 (1975): p. 125. Compare the similar construction in Jude 7-8.

Male homosexuality [or at least a form thereof -- December, 2001] is forbidden in the Holiness Code. It is regarded in one context as a "cut off" offense (Leviticus 18.22, 29) and in another context as a capital offense (Leviticus 20.13). It is one of the defilements for which the nations were being cast out in favor of Israel (Leviticus 18.24 and 20.23). For a discussion of pederasty by a Jew contemporary with Paul, see Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.37-42 = III.vii = 305-306.

Why does Paul single out bestiality (1.26) and male homosexuality (1.27) for placement near the heart of the chiasm? Two suggestions:

First, Paul is employing the figure of speech known as synecdoche, which "is the use of the part for the whole, or the whole for the part." See Greek grammar, by Herbert Weir Smyth; revised by Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, c1956): §3047. He is alluding to Leviticus 18:22-23, and so summoning the whole passage on sexual impurity, that is, on porneia. In a sense it could be said that he is employing yet another figure of speech, namely metonymy, which "is the substitution of one word for another to which it stands in some close relation," in other words, the phrases he uses in place of porneia. See Smyth (1956): §3033. So the point is not to specially condemn bestiality and homosexuality. It is rather to use them to symbolize, first of all, the whole range of sexual impurity prohibited in the Holiness Code (see Leviticus 18.6-23, where they are the last two offenses mentioned before the "cut off" formula is employed; compare 20.10-21) and, secondly, perhaps more metaphorically, impurity of the most inward sort, which engenders every kind of evil (so the natural flow into Romans 1.28-31; compare Mark 7.18-23 = Matthew 15.17-20).

This interpretation clarifies an oddity associated with Paul's mention of bestiality. Bestiality is forbidden to both men and women, and yet Paul raises the matter with apparent reference to women only. Why? Just as Paul uses the bestiality/male homosexuality matrix to symbolize the whole range of sexual impurity mentioned in the Holiness Code, so he is using the male/female matrix to indicate inclusivity with respect to the range of personal, bodily responsibility of "those who by their wickedness suppress the truth." The meaning folds back on itself, so that bestiality on the part of men is deplored as well, because of Leviticus 18.23 and 20.15. (Note: In this context, inclusivity does not imply sameness with regard to sexual prohibitions, since the Holiness Code treats the two sexes somewhat differently.)

Second, Paul may be deliberately, if loosely, patterning his remarks after the structure of the Holiness Code in Leviticus, perhaps thereby strengthening his allusion. Meredith Moyer Kline, in work as yet unpublished (as of 1993), has noted the parallel structure of Leviticus 17-18 = 20, which is set into a larger pattern, encompassing the entire book of Leviticus, along these lines: (A) 1-6.7; 6.8-7; (B) 8-10; (Ca) 11-13; (Cb) 14; (Ca) 15; (D) 16; (Ca) 17-18; (Cb) 19; (Ca) 20; (B) 21-22; (Aa) 23; (Ab) 24; (Aa) 25; (E) 26; (F) 27. I suspect that the structure of the book of Romans is, likewise, that of a large complex chiasm, but it is beyond the scope of the present work to demonstrate that hypothesis. (Cf. The Companion Bible, p. 1661.)

Note the internal chiasm here (words of the New Revised Standard Version have been slightly rearranged to conform a bit more closely to the Greek):

A - Men, giving up natural intercourse with women,
B - were consumed with passion for one another.
B - Men with men committed shameless acts
A - and received the due penalty for their error in their own persons.

The last phrase of 1.27 is mystifying. I offer a working theory as to its meaning: The perpetrators were self-focused rather than God-focused. They made an idol of bodily passions and particularly of the male organ, which they received in their own bodies fruitlessly and with profound personal impurity being a result. Through that sort of idolatry, they lost something of their humanity (cf. Psalm 115.8; 135.18).

Part of the problem with this interpretation is that it assumes a metaphorical interpretation of idolatry on Paul's part operative in the passage, which is difficult to demonstrate. Yet it is consistent with the overtones of the first chapter of Romans.

NOTE (December 2001): Since 1993, I have abandoned this interpretation of the last phrase. I now understand Paul to be interpreting Leviticus 18.22, which is the biblical prohibition that comprises the background for this verse. The internal structure of this verse (shown above) parallels the structure of Leviticus 18.22 thusly:

B segment = You shall not lie with a male
A segment = as one lies with a female

For further development of this interpretation, see the excursus in the document called "Christianity and homosexuality" and more recent work in the Glossary of Relationship Terms under "as with womankind."

 

F

1.28. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up [paredoken autous ho theos] to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

 

 

Conceivably 1.28 and 1.32 are meant to parallel each other by sandwiching the vice list. However apart from the recognition of God and His decree, the broad encompassing generalities, and the possibility of a threefold breakdown of each verse, the language is not particularly suggestive of parallelism. Even if a paralellism between verses 28 and 32 exists, it would not necessarily disrupt the parallelism with 1.23-24. Consider the following chart.

A Possible Parallel between Romans 1.28 and 1.32

Romans 1.28

Romans 1.32

ouk edokimasan ton theon echein en epignosei = they did not see fit to acknowledge God

hoitines to dikaioma tou theou epignontes, hoti hoi ta toiauta prassontes = they know God's decree, that those who practice such things

adokimon noun = debased mind

ou monon auta poiousin = not only do them

poiein ta me kathekonta = to do what is improper

syneudokousin tois prassousin = they applaud others who practice them

 

E

1.29. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,

1.30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,

1.31. foolish [asynetous], faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Possible Structure of the Vice List in Romans 1.29-31

Note well: The proposed structure below is highly tentative. Among the challenges are textual variations with regard to both order and wording. The prevailing pattern seems to be one of pairs.

pepleromenous pase = being filled with every kind of

adikia = unrighteousness

A or K by shared prefix

porneia [some manuscripts insert this word here or elsewhere in the list] = sexual impurity

[A by sound, maybe]

poneria = evil

A by sound and sense

pleonexia = covetousness, greediness, cowardice

B

kakia = malice, cowardice

B by sound and maybe sense

mestous (followed by genitive) = full of

phthonou = envy, jealousy

C

phonou = murder

C by sound

eridos = rivalry, strife (cf. the vice list in Romans 13.13, where the pairing is with zelo = jealousy)

D

dolou = deceit, treachery, baiting

D by sound

kakoetheias = maliciousness, bad manners

E; could fit with either B or J by both sound and sense

Another grammatical shift here, "they are" being implied.

psithuristas = gossips, slanderers, insinuators

F

katalalous = slanderers

F by sense

theostugeis = God-haters

G

hubristas = insolent

G by sense or H by sense

hyperephanous = haughty, arrogant

H

alazonas = boastful

H by sense

epheuretas kakon = inventors of evil, inventive scoundrels

E by sound and sense or J by position and possibly sense

goneusin apeirtheis = disobedient to, rebellious toward, unmanageable by parents

J

asynetous = foolish, lacking discernment

K

asynthetous = faithless, treacherous

K by sound or A by sense and shared prefix

astourgous = heartless, callous, without family affection

L; J by familial sense; K by shared prefix

aneleemonas = ruthless, merciless

L by sound and sense; K by shared prefix

Although it is doubtful that Paul had lesbianism in mind when he wrote Romans 1.26, it is conceivable that one of the inventions he was alluding to in 1.30 and regarded as evil was lesbianism. See his contemporary, Seneca, Epistulae morales 95.21. Compare the later statements of Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos 3.3.21, and of Caelius Aurelianus, Tardarum passionum 4.9.132-133. Of course, the next question is to ask on what basis might Paul have regarded it as evil?

 

D1

1.32. They know [epignontes] God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die &emdash; yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

 

Just to hint briefly at a radical departure from the usual way of interpreting Romans 1.17-20, 32; and 2.14-16, which treats this portion of Scripture as the locus classicus of natural theology:

First, a linkage with James' comment at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15.21) may be feasible. James justified the imposition of certain purity regulations on Gentile believers by saying that "in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues" (NRSV).

Second, comparison with the cosmological views of Paul's contemporary and fellow cosmopolitan Jew, Philo, may also be in order. Philo gives the Law metaphysical status, arguing that:

"the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world." See De opificio mundi 3 = 1.1, English translation by F. H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (1929) in LCL.

Elsewhere he gives the cosmos sacred status, stating that it is:

"The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God." See De specialibus legibus 1.66 = I.xii = 222, English translation by F. H. Colson (1937) in LCL.

The immediate cosmological context for Paul's remarks would have been early Christian temple theology. Study together 1 Kings 8.27-29; Psalm 118.22; Isaiah 28.16; 56.7; Jeremiah 7.8-15; Amos 9.11-12; Zechariah 14.16-21; Matthew 21.42-43; Mark 11.15-19 et par.; 14.57-58; John 2.13-22; Acts 4.11; 15.15-18; Romans 9.32-33; 12.1-5; 1 Corinthians 3.16-17; 6.19; 7.12-16; 11.24; 12.27; 2 Corinthians 5.1-4; 6.14-18; Ephesians 1.22-23; 2.19-22; 4.15; Colossians 1.15-20; 1 Thessalonians 4.3-8; Hebrews 8.2; 9.11; 1 Peter 2.4-9; and Revelation 21.3. Note well that the tablets of the Law resided in the temple of the Israelites (Exodus 25.26; 26.33; 40.2-3, 20-21; Deuteronomy 10.1-5; 31.26; 1 Kings 8.6-9; 2 Chronicles 5.7; 6.10-11; 35.3; Revelation 11.19).

Third, Paul would not be asserting that each person has an innate knowledge of morality in the specifics as it applies to them and to each situation encountered. Otherwise conscience would be absolute. Instead it can be weak (Romans 14.23; 1 Corinthians 8.7, 10-11; 10.29). And otherwise ignorance would have no mitigating effect. Instead we find that it does (1 Timothy 1.13; cf. John 9.41; the contrast in Leviticus 5.17 is background).

Note well that what may chiefly be known about God in these verses of Romans are God's righteousness (1.17), wrath (1.18), decree (1.32), and Law (2.15), an emphasis which may well inform the interpretation of 1.20.

 

D2

2.1. Therefore you have no excuse [anapologetos], whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

 

 

Note the internal chiasm in 2.1:

A - Therefore you are inexcusable, O every judgmental human being,
B - for in passing judgment on another
B- you condemn yourself,
A - because you, the judge, practice the same things.

 

C1

2.2. You say, "We know that God's [theou] judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with (Cc) truth [aletheian]."

 

Suggestion of Curse

2.3. Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

2.4. Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?

 

Suggestion of Blessing

Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

 

C4

2.5. But by your (Cb) hard and impenitent heart you are storing up (Ca) wrath [orgen] for yourself on the day of wrath,

 

C1

when God's [theou] righteous judgment will be revealed [apokalypseos].

 

C3 &emdash; Quotation

2.6. For he will repay according to each one's deeds [Psalm 62.12]:

 

Paul's juxtaposition of Habakkuk 2.4 and Psalm 62.12 by means of parallel construction shows him making what may be as strong a connection between faith and good works as we find in James. For James, desire gives birth to sin (James 1.14-15) and faith to good works (James 2.14-26). It may be Paul's rhetorical devices that made his letters "hard to understand." even to his own immediate audience (2 Peter 3.15-16), and that may have obscured his essential harmony with other key Apostles, even with regard to such simple connections.

 

C2 &emdash; Statement of Blessing

2.7. to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

 

C4 &emdash; Statement of Curse

2.8. while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not (Cc) the truth [aletheia] but (Cb) wickedness [adikia], there will be (Ca) wrath [orge)] and fury.

 

B

Statement of Curse

2.9. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Statement of Blessing

2.10. but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek [Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni].

 

Romans 2.7-2.10 represents a chiasm within a chiasm (1.16-2.11) within perhaps yet another chiasm (1.16 or 17-3.26). For the least and the most extensive of the three chiasms, see John Forbes (1868); pp. 7, 118.

A

2.11. For God shows no [ou gar] partiality.

 

What follows builds upon this structure. For example, Romans 2.12 parallels B; 2.13 parallels C; 2.14-16 parallels D1; 2.17-19 parallels D2; and 2.20-24 parallels E.

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Romans and the Council of Jerusalem1

 

Paul's Epistle to the Romans parallels the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in moving from ethnicity to the inclusion of Gentiles and from the question of circumcision for Gentile believers (Romans 2.25-29) to cultic purity. Romans 12.1-8 provides part of the metaphysic for cultic purity; and 14.1-15.4 reconciles with the common understanding that Jesus had declared all food clean (Mark 7.19) perhaps as many as three of the issues of cultic purity on which the Council ruled &emdash; those regarding abstinence from:

Compare 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.19-31. First and Second Corinthians and Galatians may be further elaborations of Paul's understanding of the Council's decision.

In turn, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem finds its parallel structure in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

For an excellent discussion of the relation of the Council's decision to the Holiness Code, see:

However, Hunkin made two mistakes:

Other discussion may be found in:

For excellent concise discussion of the Council's prohibitions in the first several centuries of the church, see:

Paul supplements the Council of Jerusalem by stating what it had expected Gentile believers to assume, namely Christian ethical injunctions (Romans 12.9-21) and the admonition to live in subjection to the Gentile authorities, who were already enforcing precepts meant for the nations from the days of Noah, such as the setting up of courts (taxation for the dispensing of justice in the matter of debts, etc.) and laws against adultery, murder, theft, and covetousness (13.1-10). Compare the three separate Jewish traditions about Noachic precepts represented by:

Compare the lists in:

Notice also the references to either the six Adamic precepts or the seven Noachic precepts in:

By the way, adultery was the one sub-category of porneia mentioned in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18.20 and 20.10) the prohibition of which was regarded as definitely (but perhaps not exclusively) apprehended by the nations apart from special revelation given to the Israelites (December 2001: even if not necessarily using the same definition). A couple of possible implications:

 

Reference

1 See the comment on Romans 1.21-22 above.

2 See "The offender and the offense in 2 Corinthians 2:5 and 7:12," [by] Colin G. Kruse, The Evangelical quarterly; v. 60, no. 2 (April 1988): pp. 129-139.

The supposition that the offense in 1 Corinthians 5.1 was a "cut off" offense against apocalyptic purity may have some bearing on the debate as to whether the offender was the same as the one mentioned in 2 Corinthians.

 

First compiled, 1992; partial posting, March 30, 2003; new url, January 29, 2004; last modification, January 29, 2004

Copyright ©1992-2004 by Norman Elliott Anderson

Copyright permissions are pending from Harvard University Press and other copyright holders.

Your feedback is welcome!

Go to non-frames version of "Homosexuality and Christianity."

Go to report: The Theory of Human Sexuality and Marriage or its menu of related documents.

Go to main page.