“Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbour does not understand it at all.
(Augustine, Christian Doctrine 1.35.40)
When I first read a full review of Dale B Martin’s “Sex and the Single Savior“, I was puzzled. I knew that the book was said to be making a major impact, but the content as described in the review, while certainly unfamiliar to all those who assume unthinkingly that the “clear message of Scripture” condemns all homoerotic relationships, did not really strike me as all that revolutionary. This, for example, from a review by Robert Paul Seesengood at Bible and Critical Theory, suggests that his thesis simply repeats the claims of John Boswell and William Countryman, over thirty years ago:
Chapter 3 ‘ Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences’ explores this notorious pair of words found in 1 Cor. Contrary to many suggestions which take both terms as descriptive of male-male sexual engagement (where the former term designates the active partner, the latter the passive), Martin offers a thorough lexical study to conclude that: a. we really have no idea what arsenokoitês actually entailed (though it seems to be some form of – economic – sexual exploitation?). Malakos, would be better rendered ‘effeminate’ or even ‘sissy.’
- Robert Paul Seesengood at Bible and Critical Theory
But I was missing the point. Now that I have my own copy of the book, and have read this chapter and some others (not yet the full book), I can see the importance of Martin’s repeated insistence that his aim is not simply to show that the traditional interpretations on the Bible and homosexuality are wrong (which has been done before, by Boswell and many others since), but something more deeply and fundamentally subversive. But before I can get to his key point as illustrated in this chapter, I want to go back, and summarize the problem presented by two little words which lie at the heart of much of the traditional interpretation.
The trouble with two Greek words
There are only six verses of the Bible that appear to be clear and explicit condemnations of homosexuality, and the Greek word “arsenekotoi” as the target, appears in two of them: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10. “Malakos”, its companion, appears in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, but not in Timothy. These words, often presented in modern translations as referring respectively to active and passive homosexuals, or comparable terms, therefore represent a substantial part of the evidence claimed as evidence of Biblical opposition. If they have been mistranslated, the traditional case is substantially undermined.
For example (footnote as found at the Bible Gateway)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Footnotes:
- 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
1 Timothy 1:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
The translation of “malakos” in the context of male-male sexual engagement is in fact a modern development. It occurs widely in classical and other biblical writing, where it is usually translated as “soft”, or “effeminate”, or as being associated with too great a fondness for luxury and easy living. Boswell notes that from the Reformation until the twentieth century, the standard interpretation was that it referred to masturbation.
No new textual data effected the twentieth century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entry to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians.
-Boswell, CSTH
Although “effeminate” and “soft” could be passable translations of “malakos“, “homosexual” most certainly is not.
The case of “arsenekoites” as referring to homosexuality is even more shaky. The assumption that it does rests on etymology: the two parts of the word translate roughly as male, and fucker. Combining them leads easily to translation as one who fucks men - or just a man who fucks. Etymology is also a very poor guide to translation of compound words: Countryman notes that “outbuilding” and “outhouse” have similar origins, but very distinct meanings. Martin points out that the meaning of “understand” has nothing whatever to do with the meanings of “stand” and “under”. A far better approach to translating compound words is to pay careful attention to the context and usage elsewhere. In this case, there are so few other cases of its use elsewhere, that no-one really knows what it meant. Apart from the two disputed texts (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy) there are no other examples of its use in the Bible. Martin presents examples from other, non-Biblical texts, that suggest that there was probably a sexual meaning associated with it - but that there are even stronger indications that the sense was associated with money, and financial exploitation. So male prostitute may have been the sense intended by Paul - but so could one who lives by sexual exploitation of others - as a pimp, for instance, or a slave trader.
The Trouble with ”Effeminate”
Where Dale B Martin goes beyond earlier writers on these two words, is in questioning the value of trying to establish the “real” meaning of the text. “Effeminate“, rather than ”homosexual” is decidedly a more accurate translation of “malakos” than “homosexual“, but to use it instead does not resolve the problem. In the twentieth century, many people would assume a connection between them, as in many popular stereotypes. But in earlier times, people would have understood “effeminate” in quite different ways, all linked to the understanding of women as inferior to men - which is why effeminate males were scorned. But by this reasoning, men who were excessively devoted to women, indulging in too much heterosexual intercourse, were regarded as effeminate, while men who avoided women entirely, taking only the penetrative role in homosexual intercourse, were regarded as especially masculine. Women, by definition, were regarded as the most feminine, followed by men who took a female part by submitting to penetration. But then followed the heterosexual sex addicts, allowing themselves to be contaminated by too much intercourse with women, and the most “masculine” of all were what we might think of as gay “tops”, always taking the active, penetrative role.
Moving away from sexual roles, there were and still are, other markers of effeminacy. If, in our attempts to be true to the text, we choose to condemn effeminate behaviour, what exactly will be proscribed?
…..do we condemn only those things that our culture regards as effeminate? and what might that be? Taking ballet lessons? singing falsetto in the men and boys’ choir? shaving one’s body hair for anything but a swim meet or cycle race? being a drag queen? having a transsexual operation? camping it up?
Ideas of effeminacy are culturally determined. Martin is writing as an American British men would be startled by some of his other candidates for “effeminacy”:
…..refusing to own a gun? driving an automatic instead of a stick shift? drinking tea? actually requesting sherry?
The problem with attempts to condemn effeminate behaviour on scriptural grounds goes way beyond the difficulty of trying to determine just what, in our circumstances, is included. The core issue is the reason why effeminate men were criticized in the first place - a deeply rooted assumption, in Biblical lands and throughout the Mediterranean world of the time, that women were inherently inferior to men, that their lives were to be governed and controlled by their menfolk (first their fathers, thereafter their husbands or brothers). That view has been widely rejected by now.
The trouble with heteronormative interpretations of scripture.
At a deeper level still, Martin argues, there is a problem in any attempt to find a single, “correct” translation and interpretation of scriptural texts.In his chapter on these troublesome Greek words, and throughout his book, he is careful to insist that he is not trying to prove that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality - or to confirm that it did. What he is trying to show, is that in precisely the same way that queer biblical scholars have been accused of reading their own preconceptions into their interpretations into scripture as special pleading, so have the traditional interpretations, written from uniformly heterosexual perspectives, done the same. The condemnation of homosexuality that is widely presented as “the clear meaning of the Bible” is nothing of the sort, but is instead a heteronormative interpretation, by which a heterosexual, patriarchal interpretation has been imposed as a heterosexual and (until the present day) mostly male special pleading.
But if we accept Martin’s argument against the search for the “true” meaning of these Biblical texts, another important question arises: how are we to read the Bible, or to evaluate a particular interpretation? He addresses that elsewhere, which I leave aside for now. What he does do in this chapter, is provide a very clear idea of what is never an acceptable interpretation. Quoting St Augustine
“Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbour does not understand it at all.
and then he concludes (my emphasis):
Any interpretation of Scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church’s stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover’s voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends?…
All appeals to “what the Bible says” are ideological and problematic. But in the end, all appeals, whether to the Bible or anything else, must submit to the test of love. To people who say this is simplistic, I say, far from it. There are no easy answers. “Love” will not work as a foundation for ethics in a prescriptive or predictable fashion either — as can be seen by all the injustices, imperialisms, and violence committed in the name of love. But rather than expecting the answer to come from a particular method of reading the Bible, we at least push the discussion to where it ought to be: into the realm of debates about Christian love, rather than into either fundamentalism or modernist historicism.
We ask the question that must be asked: “What is the loving thing to do?”
(“Sex and the Single Savior” is a collection of independent articles, most of which have been published previously. The chapter on arsenekotoi and malakos appears in the book as chapter 3, and previously appeared in Robert L Brawley(ed), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality
. The full text may be read on-line at the Pacific University Centre for Lesbian and Gay Studies).
- Bohache, Thomas et al (eds):The Queer Bible Commentary
- Boswell, John: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.
- Countryman, William L: Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today
- Helminiak, Daniel: What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality
- Knust, Jennifer Wright: Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire
- Martin, Dale B: Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation
- Miner, Rev Jeff: The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships
- Nissinen, Marti: Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective
- Patterson, Linda J: Hate Thy Neighbor: How the Bible is Misused to Condemn Homosexuality
- Rogers, Jack: Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality Explode the Myths, Heal the Church
- Scroggs, Robin: New Testament and Homosexuality
- Stone, Ken: Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective
Related articles
- The Bible and Textual Abuse: The Case of “malakoi” and “arsenokoites”.
- “The Bible In Drag”: Introducing a Queer – centric Reading of Scripture
- Jesus’ “Queer Death” – and the Modern Queer Resurrection
- “Blessed Are the Queer in Faith”: 60 Years Reassessing Scripture
- The Abomination of “Abomination”.
- The Bible, Homosexuality and Why I Keep Coming Back (alaskapride.wordpress.com)
- The Bible and Gays: Looking Closer (Newsday)
This is helpful and interesting.
I’m glad the book takes us behind the surface of the Greek words and the various ways people have read them, into questioning the core idea behind these troublesome words, and beyond that to questioning the whole hetero-normative world view of scriptural interpretation, and then into the sphere of looking at finding a perspective that uses the lens of love. Thanks for the links and I’ll read the essay online.
Looking at Martin’s USA synonyms for effeminacy, it is disturbing to see failing to own a gun as such a signifier: very Marlboro man. But it also tells us how very local, culturally- and historically- specific words relating to gender and sexuality are. I tend to see European, North American, Australian and NZ conceptions of sexuality as very similar, but there are nuances I wasn’t even aware of - like drinking tea.
Maybe the Greek words were used a bit like how we might try to suggest something without quite saying it, when we use the adjectives ‘sensitive’ and ‘artistic’ about a man. Not necessarily gay, but not your regular Saturday lads out on the town, footie and pub type of guy. Or to describe a relationship in Greek times where ‘the wife wears the trousers’ in the relationship.
We struggle oftentimes with the nuances of Shakespearean English and miss many of the subtleties of the plays, where actors playing the female parts (as was required in his time) were teased with, with males playing girls pretending to be males, was a central plot device. And most people shared beds and sleeping quarters without it meaning anything. But Shakespeare wrote just 400 years ago, in our own language; and we are trying to figure out the meaning of texts written for very different cultures, geographies, in an old version of Greek, 2000 years back.
I’m glad you found this book interesting. In fact, my professor assigned my class’ final paper to be based on this book.
On another note, I hope that you can see from his discussions on ‘modern’ interpretations, and unknowingly equating unrelated concepts, that this is referring to the current drama over homosexuality as a post 1850′s phenomenon (like I have been saying), that ‘homosexuals’ prior to that time period were not “condemned” by the church like people today assume. That is why the Second Vatican Council seemed to be far more accepting of homosexuals than the post 1978 Church, because it was precisely the late 70′s when the equation of sexual interests and the worth and ‘identity’ of a person were fused together in western society. The Current condemnation of “homosexual people” is sourced in MODERNITY. Historically speaking, ONLY if someone was engaging in anal sex, which DID include married men and women, could someone be ‘persecuted’. Furthermore, despite the ‘image’ and ‘sound-bit history’ that is so popular today, the ‘penalty’ for sodomy was typically a fine; death was rarely a punishment in Catholic countries with the exception of a few time periods in a few locals. FOr example, Savonarola instituted the death penalty for sodomy in north central italy, but the Pope deposed him and installed a more liberal government which reverted the penalty to a slap on the wrist fine. I also have many examples of historical homosexuals not being condemned as people by the Church or even society, such as Philipp I, Duke of Orleans, who was unabashedly effeminate and had many relationships with men. He even attended balls in women’s clothing when he was younger; and while yes some people disliked it, he received no actual condemnation or shame from the church - it was just seen as one of the countless failures of humans to live up to the perfection of Christ, and so was not considered anything to be especially concerned about. In fact, Cardinal Mazarin is said to have arraigned a “friendship” between Philippe and his own nephew (who also ‘enjoyed the company of men’). This does not mean that ‘homosexuals’ did not suffer at all prior to the 1850′s, but it does mean that the current situation of hate and shame and division and suicides is thoroughly and entirely and uniquely a modern phenomena that has arisen out of defining people by their sexual interests. You see this in the middle-east even. In afghanistan, even in the year 2004, homosociality was the STANDARD and homosexual activity was ‘not talked about’ but was a highly common thing. However, since 2004, the modern western ‘sexual identity’ construct has been imported to the middle east and the past few years have seen the first real persecution of homosexuals as a group in middle-eastern history. Even the extremely homosocial nature of those cultures is rapidly under assult becuase of all of this frenzy over homosexuality brought through the importation of western ideas. The middle east is currently going through the heterosexualization of society in a similar though more violent fashion as western society did after the invention of the terms ‘heterosexual and homosexual’ and especially after those terms became labels to identify people with. The shocking methods of torture and murders of suspected homosexuals in the middle east in the past 3 years is directly the result of the victorian ideology that human sexuality can be defined into set categories and that people’s sexualities define who they are as a person.
Failure to recognize this historical FACT, that the development of the current anti-homosexual trend is a phenomena of MODERNITY, is what causes people like that Jon commentator to incorrectly superimpose their personal modern experience back onto history and in effect create a mythological history that is not in anyway supported by the actual historical record.
Anyways, I have a final exam in 30m. I look forward to any other posts related to this book in the future.
“because it was precisely the late 70′s when the equation of sexual
interests and the worth and ‘identity’ of a person were fused together
in western society.”
This is a sweeping assertion that simply doesn’t fit the historical facts.
If we consider the USA, the Stonewall riots in NY at the Inn of that name were in 1969, a decade earlier than your chronology. The following year the first gay pride march took place in NY on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots.
Before that the Mattachine Society was founded by gay men in 1950. ‘Physique’ and similar gay interest magazines were published well before the late 70s
In the UK, the Wolfenden Committee which was set up by the government to
investigate and make recommendations relating to homosexual law reform
in 1954 and it published its report in 1957. In 1958 the Homosexual Law
Reform Society was set up; most of its members were closeted gay men, closeted because prosecutions for gay sex, blackmail and police entrapment were very common. In 1961 the seminal British film Victim, took
a gay theme, pleading for
tolerance towards homosexuals and an end to the pervasive blackmail of
gay men. The legislation decriminalising gay sex was passed in 1967. In 1969 the Committee for Homosexual Equality (CHE) was established by out gay people. In 1970 London Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was set up and the first British gay rights demonstration was held in London. Underground / alternative magazines like Oz and IT carried positive gay material and contact ads in the late 60s early seventies.
I could challenge other assertions here with similar contrary evidence and a different analysis of the evidence.
For example British history has a number of notorious royals, including Edward II, where the evidence shows that your assertion that “the current situation of hate and shame and division and suicides is thoroughly and entirely and uniquely a modern phenomena” is false.
Edward II had two male lovers, most notoriously Piers Gaveston: Chroniclers called the relationship excessive, immoderate, beyond measure and reason and criticised his desire for wicked and forbidden sex. The Westminster chronicler claimed that Gaveston had led Edward to
reject the sweet embraces of his wife; while the Meaux Chronicle took the concern further and complained
that, Edward took too much delight in sodomy.
British historian Ian Mortimer has drawn attention to the use of ‘anti-sodomite’ smear campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th centuries against Pope Boniface VIII and the Knights Templar. “Hate and shame and division” about homosexual behaviour, real or imagined, are not “thoroughly and entirely and uniquely a modern phenomena”.
Thank you for the correction. due to the medium of blog and commentary, I am forced to make generalization and approximations to get the jist of all of the things I am trying to say without typing a ‘book’ everytime. Primarily what I was refereing to in the “1970s” was not individuals’ but SOCIETY’S equation of sexual desire and ‘identity/worth of the person’, as this is when non-homosexuals started accept that homosexuality was not ‘apart of the person’ and not simply a ‘chosen vice’ like gambling, drinking, or prostitution.
Also, your comments on Edward II and pre-modern (which means pre-late 18th/19/th centuries) expose your continued retro-imposition of modern concepts on to time periods when such ideas did not express. For example, you equate sodomy with homosexuality. The two are fully independent of each other. Sodomy is anal sex, and other forms of literally sticking your penis into a biological orifice that is not a human vagina (such as bestiality, but such specifics depended on time period and geographical location). Homosocial, homoerotic, homoromantic, homosupportive, homocoupling, and homosexual relationships are all different things that have now been lumped into the term homosexual; and it is precicely this lumping together of concepts into one generalized term, and so preventing nuance and true difference from being discussed, that is the foundation of the brilliant thesis on ‘Newspeak’ in Orwell’s 1984. here when I say homosexal I mean literally penetrative sex between two people of the same physical body type. I do not mean homosexuals/gay people. There is a substantial segment in the ‘homosexual’ population that does not agree with anal sex, but becuase such people are a minority and usually do not feel the need to flaunt their sexuality they remain a relatively uknown becuase they are covered up by the sensationalism and guadiness of present gay culture. FUthermore, straight people can also be condemned for sodomy, both with another person of the same sex and with a member of the opposite sex - which dictates that sodomite does not equal homosexual. there may be a large correlation between “gays” and people who practice sodomy, but it is an official fallacy of logic to equate causation with correlation. IF there was the same ‘shame’ and ‘hate’ toward homosexuals in pre-modern times as there are in modern times then homosocial, homoromantic, homosupportive, and homocoupling (which is loosely “more than friends”) would have been condemned as ‘sodomy’ as well. Seeing as the stories and examples of all of the various forms of homo relationships (between both obviously gay people and clearly straight people) are NOT condemned prior to the modern period in Christian based cultures, but merely anal sex, then you cannot in anyway say that the situation was then how it is now. It is psychologically impossible for a human to shame another human, or for a human to feel shame, over something that does not have a word to refer to. Therefore, ONLY ANAL SEX and NOT EMOTIONAL/ROMATIC/EROTIC ATTRACTION to people of the samesex is what is being condemned or ‘shamed’ prior to the modern period. Also, everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that two women really could not be charged with Sodomy, despite the fact that there were clearly (what we would call) lesbians in existence during all of these periods; everyone loves to equate sodomy with homosexuality, but that is just the ‘most common’ way that sodomy is preformed in the periods we are talking about - if sodomy equaled homosexuality then examples of two women being charged with sodomy would be just as prevalent as ‘two men’. But two women cannot by definition be guilty of ‘the unnatural vice’ (aka sodomy), because THEIR IS NO PENIS INVOLVED.
Furthermore, the 13th and 14th century ‘smear campagins’ cannot by definition be called ‘anti-homosexual’ because they did not have a word to describe a person as such. A sodomite was someone who engaged in anal sex, not someone who is romantically and emotionally involved with those of the same sex. The fact that a woman can be called a sodomite for having sex with a man means that sodomy refers ONLY TO A SPECIFIC ACTION and not to ‘an orientation of attraction for people of the same sex’. I have a friend who calls a number of girls who enjoy anal sex with anyone who will give it to them “the sodomites”. Not to mention, charges of ‘sodomy’ (indulging in anal sex) and “effeminacy” (50% of which is being the receptive partner in penetrative sex) are standard political rhetoric in European history since PAGAN ROME. the difference is that medieval christians condemned anal sex itself, while the pre-christian romans only condemned anal sex if a roman citizen was the receptive partner, because it was impossible to be penetrated and still be a man in their view - remember, gender was defined primarily by what you do not by what your body type was - which means that people who hold this view of gender literally cannot conceive of the modern concept of “homosexuality”, because the entire basis of the idea is founded upon the concept “a man who has sex with men”. If you view gender as a role and not as a “body type”, then someone who takes the “woman’s position” effectively ceases to be ‘male’. Penetrative Sex between two people of the same body type inherently makes one masculine and one feminine, one male and one female, in this view and therefore “two males” having sex is literally IMPOSSIBLE when gender is defined primarily by role and action. Modern “homosexuality” is entirely depended on the definition of gender by body type and not by role/action
Here is compilation of masculine/male/man traits and feminine/female/woman traits:
Masculine: Feminine:
Light Dark
Positive Negative
(Positive/negative do NOT mean “good and bad”, positive means a ‘pushing energy, while negative means a pulling/’drawing towards’ energy: yes it equates to magnetic forces)
Overt Hidden
Hard Soft
Solid Yielding
Focused Diffused
Hot Cold
Dry Wet
Aggressive Passive
Fire Water
Sun Moon
(notice how no traditional sun-god in any culture has been a woman/feminine energy, and likewise I cannot think of any major moon diety from any culture that portrays the moon as a hard masculine energy)
The list goes on, and there is a bit of variation between cultures on peripheral traits, but these are the main and most consistent ones; and yes, this is almost identically laid out in the yin-yang of daoism/taoism.
With this more ‘naturalistic’ view of gender as energy/traits/action/role, you cannot have “homosexuality”. Not until the heterosexualization of society was gender defined primarily by penis/vagina was “homosexuality” able to be created.
Therefore, prior to the modern period, two men being charged with ‘sodomy’ were NOT being charged with homosexuality, they were being charged with ANAL SEX, which was seen as dirty, unnatural, and an activity founded purely on lust as it is indulged in by those who desire more sexual satisfaction than normal sex provides. IF there was an element of ‘anti-homosexualness’ in pre-modern times, it was based around the view that people were violating their gender roles by being ‘men’ who ‘took the position of a women’. A yin who is showing the traits and preforming the roles of a yang, and therefore a fundamental impropriety between the two primal energy/natures of the universe (trying to make two positive ends of a pair of batteries coexist in the same space, a yin-yang with both sides colored white). This obviously necessitated a basic idea of body type being indicative of ‘gender’, due to assuming that body type correlated with gender; but assuming correlation is not the same as defining gender by penis/vagina, by body type as the primary definition of what it means to be ‘a man’ vs ‘a woman’ like we do today. This problem is created by the rejection of gender complimentarianian thought and the promotion of the idea that women and men are the same and thus interchangeable due to the false equation of complimentary with “unequal” which is intellectual dishonesty in my opinion.