Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A historical perspective by Martii Nissinen (Fortress Press, 1998), 208 pp.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
This is the work of an Old Testament scholar at the University of Helsinki. Published by a major Lutheran press, it is comprehensive and succinct in surveying the primary texts on homoeroticism from the world in which the Bible was written.
In his Preface, Nissinen says that, as he undertook his research, he “soon had to face the problem that sources that go back two or three millennia do not fit modern categories. Whether the texts I studied were biblical or Jewish, Assyrian, Greek, or Roman, the term ‘homosexuality’ was absent from them and the concept alien.” This early and sustained finding is precisely what those who use the Bible to wage a “culture war” against gay men and lesbians today do not take seriously – if they even understand it at all. (Ironically, lesbigayt apologists who take their own homosexuality back to the Bible make the same mistake.) He argues that any attempt to mechanically apply a few Bible verses on same-sex behavior to the phenomena of contemporary homosexual orientation and peer-relations fails in its hermeneutics. He is convinced – and convincing – that today’s discourse on homosexuality must not confuse modern phenomena with the various forms and perceptions of homoeroticism in the ancient Mediterranean world.
Chapter by chapter, Nissinen illustrates the contemporary observation that sexual categories and interpreted sexual experiences are socially constructed and are not the same from culture to culture and from age to age.
His review of the Mesopotamian material evokes Paul’s rhetoric on gender role “exchanges” in pagan religions (Rom 1). Nissinen sees “transgressing conventional gender boundaries” as typical of the Great Mother goddess who was both “a charming, erotic woman – harlot or virgin – [and] a bearded soldier.” She was widely worshipped in sex rituals by self-castrated, cross-dressing cult functionaries.
Concluding his discussion of the Holiness Code (Lev 18:22; 20:13), he states: “The societal interpretation of gender roles, combined with ancient taboos and the societal survival strategy, caused ‘lying with a man’ to have a tremendously negative symbolic value. Like castration or cross-dressing, male anal intercourse manifested a forbidden mixture, a mixture of gender roles.” In his analysis of the Sodom and Gibeah stories (Gen 19; Judg 19), Nissinen points out that “the earliest interpretations …do not emphasize the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom” [Ezek 16:49] and “references in the New Testament follow the same course. … In the Jesus tradition the sin of Sodom is an example of the lack of hospitality.” [Luke 10:12; Matt 10:15] On the story of Gibeah, he observes that the cause for offense is heterosexual assault and adds: “Perhaps not surprisingly, no later interpreter of the story, ancient or modern, has condemned heterosexual behavior because of this text, although it is structurally equivalent to the story of Sodom, which has been used to condemn homosexuality.”
Of same-sex behavior in classical antiquity, Nissinen writes: “The Greeks regarded it impossible for a man to have a deep, all-encompassing love relationship with a woman. This was possible only between two men, and such was the aim of pederastic relations … . [But] once gaining body hair, the boys lost their appeal in the eyes of adult men.” Turning to Roman male homoeroticism, he notes the sex between Roman citizens and their slave boys or boy prostitutes. But “by the beginning of the Common Era at the latest,” he notes Roman “homoerotic relations developed such brutal traits that … many Greeks and Romans, especially philosophers oriented toward Stoicism [like Paul?], bitterly castigated men’s homoerotic relations.” It is clear that classical homoeroticism is not what is found today in loving, same-gender sexual relationships between peers.
Nissinen explains that in Romans 1 and 2, “What matters is the theology of justification by faith, not homoeroticsm as such. Paul’s rhetorical strategy … seems to be to stimulate his readers’ moral indignation by listing sins traditionally associated with Gentiles, in conventional Jewish wordings – but this is a rhetorical trap: Paul turns the force of his criticism against” self-righteous Jews. According to Nissinen and other scholars, the meaning of Paul’s terms in I Corinthians 6:9, often automatically applied today to homosexuals, “remains obscure.” He says: “The modern concept of ‘homosexuality’ should by no means be read into Paul’s text.” Indeed, he concludes: “No single passage in the Bible actually offers a specifically formulated statement about same-sex eroticism.”
Thus, with no correspondence between the ancient texts and phenomena and our own responsibilities around contemporary homosexual orientation and behavior, Nissinen calls his readers to “love [as] the central hermeneutical principle when applying biblical commands, advice, and ideals to the lives of people today.”