|
Writings of the Second Temple Period
Summary: Second Temple texts condemn homoerotic behaviour on two bases: the transgression of gender roles, and the lack of procreative potential. It is important to keep these factors in mind when examining the New Testament references.
Origins of the documents Thetexts containing homoerotic references dating from the Second Temple period come mostly from diaspora Judaism. There appear to be no texts from Palestinian sources, although the Testament of Levi is probably Syrian, and Josephus wrote in Rome from a Paelstinian point of view. But the important documents are Egyptian. Most refer to male homoeroticism, however two of the Alexandrian writers refer to female behaviour.
A. Sibylline Oracles IV The Sibylline Oracles are a group of documents written by Jewish writers and later redacted by Christian editors in imitation of the oracles collected by Augustus. Although generally presented together, each oracle is a separate document with separate origins.
The original oracles in Sib.Or.IV were probably written not long after the time of Alexander. Lines 33-34 occur in a passage concerning righteous men (24-39), who put the great God before drinking and eating, reject idolatry and do not commit murder:
Neither have they disgraceful desire for another’s spouse or for hateful and repulsive abuse of a male. (OTP I)
The behaviour in question is difficult to ascertain. The context (the activities of good males) identifies the subject as male, hence the behaviour is homoerotic acts between men. The description “hateful and repulsive” is a value judgement, describing the author’s attitude, not the behaviour. That it is an “abuse” suggests not that it is a violent non-consensual act, but that to the author’s mind it is an illicit usage of the male. The “correct” usage is that found in the mariage relationship, with the male as penetrator. It is plausible that this is what the author had in mind, considering that this behaviour is paired with adultery; this suggests a relationship between the two, probably as transgressions against marriage.
B. Sibylline Oracles III The original components of this document were probably written in Egypt probably during the reigns of Philometer and Physion (c. 163-45 BCE).
In a passage “prophesying” the rise of Rome to domination of the region, the author describes the evil things that will occur until “the people of the great God” will again become strong under “the seventh reign” (ll. 192-3), that is, Ptolemy VI Philometer:
Male will have intercourse with male and they will set up boys in houses of ill fame and in those days there will be great affliction among men and it will throw everything into confusion. (185-7) (OTP I)\
The author does not discriminate between sexual relations between adult men, and between men and boys; this is evident from the use of “males”, rather than “men”. This there is probably a criticism of adult homoeroticism. There is also an explicit observation on pederasty; perhaps the author is suggesting that biys involved in pederastic relationships have bneen prostituted, or are prostituting themselves.
Lines 595-600 appear in a section describing the virtues of the Jews (ll. 573-600):
they are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations of others, Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed. (OTP I)
This is a direct reference to pederasty, as a gentile/pagan practice. It is couples with a reference to marriage, providing a context which is also reflected in lines 764-66:
Avoid adultery and indiscriminate intercourse with males. Rear your offspring and do not kill it, for the immortal is angry at whoever commits these sins. (OTP I)
Here homoerotic behaviour is equated with adultery, as in Sib.Or.IV:33-34; and also with child-killing. Unlike the previous references it does not appear to refer to pederasty, but to promiscuous homosexuality.
C. Testament of Levi One of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, this is probably Syrian in provenance, with the opriginal documents dating from during the Maccabean period. Levi prophesies to his descendants that they will become apostate and profane the priesthood for a period of seventy weeks (16:1). He foresees that “In the seventh week there will come priests: idolators, adulterers, money lovers, arrogant, lawless, voluptuaries, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.” (17:11)\
Pederasty is not singled out for discussion. But it is placed in a list of offences which are to be despised.
D. Letter of Aristeas Probably written by a Jew in Alexandria during the second half of the second century BCE, the Letter of Aristeas describes the purported circumstances of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Septuagint).
In a passage contrasting “the piety and sexual righteousness of the Jews and their law code” with the behaviour of other peoples, the author has the high priest Eleazar say:
The majority of other men defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a serious offence, and lands and whole cities take pride in it: they not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters. We are quite separated from these practices. (152) (OTP II)
The meaning of the phrase “procure the males” is unclear. It is more likley to refer to homoerotic activity between adult men than pederasty. The whole text is reminiscent of the Leviticus references in theme of defilement of the land through illict sexual practices.
E. Pseudo-Phocylides This selection of maxims was probably written by a Jew in the reigns of Augustius and Tiberius (between 30 BCE and 37 CE), possibly in Alexandria.
The first reference to homoerotic behaviour is a simple command:
Neither commit adultery nor arouse homosexual passion. (3) (OTP II)
It does not refer to behaviours, but only to the arousal of desire. In view of the fact that desire leads to action, there is an implicit condemnation of honoerotic behaviour. Note also the pairing of homosexuality with adultery, suggesting that it is condemned as a behaviour in opposition to marriage.
The next reference appears in a passage discussing prohibited sexual behaviour (ll. 175-206)
Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. For even animals are not pleased by intercourse of male with male. And let women not imitate the sexual role of men. (lit. “marriage bed”) (190-2) (OTP II)
The “limits set by nature” is a recurring concept in the discussion of this issue, becoming particularly significant to Philo (see below). Certain behaviours are prohibited because they transgress the gender roles appointed by nature. The “limit set by nature” here is that male/male sex does not occur among the animals (an erroneous observation), which according to the author is because of some moral sense.
Line 191 clearly refers to homoerotic behaviour between males; line 192 is one of the rare references to female homoeroticism in the entire Jewish corpus. It most likely refers to sexual contact between women in which one partner penetrates the other. It is not the possibility of female-female erotic behaviour which would cause offence, but the performance of behaviour which is not appropriate for her gender role.
Gender roles also appear in ll. 210-12:
If a child is a boy do not let locks grow on (his) head. Do not braid (his) crown nor the cross knots at the top of (his) head. Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women. Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, because many rage for intercourse with a man. (210-14) (OTP II)
These lines warn against “feminizing” young boys by allowing them to grow their hair long. The “limits set by nature” are obviously an influence here, but ll. 213-14 reveal fear of pederasty. There is a clear reference to pederasty here. Although the Greeks considered 12-18 the permissible age for pederasty, the Jews could have judged this on their own standards. Thus a candidate for a pederastic relationship would still be considered a child in Jewish eyes.
F. Sibylline Oracles II An extension of Sib.Or. I, the Jewish stage of Sib.Or. II was probably written no earlier than 30BCE. Line 73 is part of a section (ll. 56-77) which was actually extracted from Pseudo-Phocylides (ll. 5-79)
Do not practice homosexuality, do not betray information, do not murder. (OTP I)
It is impossible to establish if this is a Jewish comment, an addition in the spirit of Pseudo-Phocylides, or a Christian interpolation. The use of the word arsenokoiten, used by Paul in 1 Corinthians, and not attested elsewhere before this, suggests that this reference might be of Christian origin.
G. Sibylline Oracles V This was written in Egypt towards the end of the first Century CE, post-dating Paul, but is included here because it reflects contemporary attitudes.
A charge against Rome is that
With you are found adulteries and illicit intercourse with boys. Effeminate and unjust, evil city, ill-fated above all. (166-7) (OTP I)
Rome is guilty of pederasty. Part of that offence is its “effeminate” element. Adultery and homosexuality are again linked.
Another passage condemns Rome’s sexual transgressions:
Matricides, desist from boldness and evil daring, you who formerly impiously catered for pederasty and set up in houses prostitutes who were pure before, with insults and punishment and toilsome disgrace. For in you mother had intercourse with child unlawfully, and daughter was joined with her begetter as bride. In you also kings defiled their ill-fated mouths. In you also evil men practiced bestiality. (386-393) (OTP I)
Pederasty is here classed with pimping and incest.
In a passage concerning a saviour figure, the author looks forward to a time when
… terrible things no longer happen to wretched mortals, no adulteries or illicit love of boys, no murder, or din of battle, but competition is fair among all. (429-31) (OTP I)
Again, pederasty is paired with adultery.
H. Philo 1. De Specialibus Legibus In a discussion of the exclusion of the unworthy from the holy congregation, Philo writes
…It begins with the men who belie their sex and are afflicted with effemination, who debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women. (1.325)
Philo rejects these men because they do not reflect the appropriate gender roles. Against nature, they take on both the outward appearance and the sexual behaviours of women. Philo attacks pederasty on the same basis:
He [the wicked man] not only attacks in his fury the marriage-beds of others, but even plays the pederast and forces the male type of nature to debase and convert itself into the feminine form, just to indulge a polluted and accursed passion. (2.50)
He attacks the active partner who forces other males into the feminine role, against their nature. Again, adultery and homosexuality are linked.
In an extended passage (3.37-42) Philo condemns pederasty on the basis that it transgresses against the natural order. This type of behaviour is “now a matter of boasting not only to the active but to the passive partners,…” (3.37). The passive partners “habituate themselves to endure the disease of effemination” (3.37), by arranging their hair, and using make-up and perfumes like women. The law “ordains that the man-woman who debases the stirling coin of nature should perish unavenged, suffered not to live for a day or even an hour, as a disgrace to himself, his house, his native land and the whole human race.”(3.38)
Philo also attacks the active partner, in a passage suggesting that he is reacting to the practice of pederasty. As well as pursuing a pleasure which is against nature (para physin) the paiderastes “sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in the grievous vices of unmanliness and effeminacy by prolonging the bloom of the young and emasculating the flower of their prime, which should rightly be trained to strength and robustness.” (3.39)
He then introduces another concept to the argument. The pederast “destroys the means of procreation”, by letting “fruitful fields lie sterile” and labouring on those fields which cannot produce growth (3.39). In isolation this comment might be seen as an attack on anal intercourse, not primarily a defence of procreation. But the wider context indicates that it derives its whole point from a conception of procreation. In 3:32 Philo forbids intercourse with a menstruating wife. He also condemns men who deliberately marry infertile women (3:34). Both are wrong because the seeds are wasted.
2. De Vita Contemplativa In Vit.Cont. 59-63 Philo discusses the symposium as described by Plato. The talk at these banquets is of love, not merely “passions recognised by the laws of nature” but also that of men for other males (andron arresin) (59), especially pederasty. He first focuses on the eromenos, asserting that pederasty robs men of courage and makes them effeminate, turning them into a hybrid of man and woman (androgynos) “those who should have been disciplined in all the practices which make for valour.” (60). The erastes is affected in soul, body and possessions - the mind of the pederast is set on the eromenos to the exclusion of all else, so that his body wastes through desire and his property diminishes through neglect and expenditure (61). There is a problem here. In the classic Greek pederastic relationship the eromenos was too young (12-18 years) to have property or means. Philo may have been describing a local variation, involving an older eromenos; or, unlikely, he may have been describing something which he had not seen.
As in Spec.Leg. 3.39 Philo asserts that “cities are desolated” because of this thwarting of the procreative act (62).
3. Hypothetica In 7:1-9 Philo details the many ways on which the Jews apply their laws strictly and impartially. At the beginning he describes the Jewish attitude towards pederasty:
If you are guilty of pederasty or adultery or rape of a young person, even of a female, similarly if you prostitute yourself or allow or purpose or intend any action which your age makes indecent the penalty is death. (7.1)
To pederasty (again grouped with adultery) Philo adds the crime of homosexual rape. That Philo adds “even of a female” indicates that the “rape of a young person” involves a male victim.
4. Female homoeroticism in Philo In Spec.Leg. 3.51 Philo advocates that the prostitute be stoned to death because “she infects the souls of both men and women with licentiousness.” This suggests that prostitutes engaged in homoerotic acts with women; if not with clients then probably amongst themselves. Interestingly the prostitute deserves death because she has “corrupted the graces bestowed by nature (tes physeos)”- what she has done is para physin.
Philo uses the term gynandros in three texts (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 100, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit 274, De Virtutibus 21). The gynandros is the female corollary of the androgynos, the man who transgresses gender boundaries, usually by acquiring the gender characteristics of a woman.
The context for Virt. 20-21 is a discussion of the command against cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5:
...the true man should maintain his masculinity, particularly in his clothes, which as he always wears them by day and night ought to have nothing to suggest unmanliness. In the same way he trained the woman to decency of adornment and forbade her to assume the dress of a man, with the further object of guarding against the mannish-woman (hos androgynos houtos kai gynandrous phulaxamenos).”
That both men and women are explicitly described as performing the same behaviour indicates that the two terms are conceptually different, ie they are not synonyms for male activity. In Sacr AC 100 the terms are again distinguished because of the use of the feminine article for gynandros and the masculine article for androgynos:
Men could not contest with women, nor women with men, the functions which fitly belong only to the other sex. If women should affect the practices of men, or men attempt those of women (hai men gynandros... hoi de androgynos) they will in each case be held to belie their sex and win an ill name thereby.
And again in Rer Div Her 274:
It is when the mind which has come down from heaven, though it be fast bound in the constraints of the body, nevertheless is not lured by any of them to embrace like some hybrid, man-woman or woman-man (androgynos e gynandros), the pleasant seeming evils, but holding to its own nature (tes heautou physeos) of true manhood has the strength to be victor instead of victim in the wrestling bout.
These texts imply an explicit distinction of roles on gender lines; there is the possibility that a man or woman may take on the dress or behaviour of the other. Whether this behaviour is sexual or not is not specified. But gender distinctions provide the basis for Philo’s condemnation of male passive sexual activity, and it is quite possible that Philo had the female equivalent in mind in these instances. Philo might be objecting to a woman taking the active, penetrating role in intercourse, a possibility with both male and female partners.
5. Philo’s concept of para physin Were the effeminate and pederastic elements removed from the activities which Philo condemns, and only the sexual behaviour remained, Philo would still object on the basis that it was para physin. What does para physin mean to Philo?
There is no Hebrew equivalent for physin, either the word or the concept. The idea is Greek in origin and attested as far back as the time of Homer. Plato developed an understanding of what is kata/para physin which influenced Philo (and probably other Jewish writers of the first century CE). This influence can be discerned in their similar emphasis on procreation.
In Timaeus 90e-91 Plato asserted that cowardly or immoral men were reborn in the second life as women. Only then did the gods produce sexual love, creating the penis and the womb as the instruments of procreation. Both instruments create the desire to reproduce. Plato speaks only of procreative desires and pleasures, not non-procreative; and while he explains the divine purpose of the penis, he does not discuss female genitalia. Femaleness is thus defined by receptivity; Plato gives a rationale for the cultural norm of active/passive gender roles, and gives it normative value as kata physin.
This explains Plato’s statement in Leg. 636b-c:
…this institution [the gymnasium] is thought to have corrupted the pleasures of love which are natural not to men only but also natural to beasts… one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure (hedone) experienced is held to be due to nature (kata physin), but contrary to nature (para physin) when male mates with male or female with female (arrenon de de pros arrenas e theleion pros theleias), and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Thus the only legitimate sexual pleasure, the only one kata physin, is that involved in procreative acts.
In Leg. 838e Plato (through the character of the Athenian) proposes a law by which the only permissible intercourse would be that which leads to childbearing. In the discussion of this concept the Athenian comments,
Possibly, should God so grant, we might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations - either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural (para physin) and barren seed in sodomy…
Philo echoes Plato’s thoughts on procreation in several places. In Abr. 137 he refers to “the unions which men and women naturally make for begetting children”, which reflects a similar phrase in Leg. 838e. Mention has already been made of the theme of procreation in Spec.Leg. 3:37-42. Philo there refers to the active partner as one who works in fields which cannot bear fruit (3.39; cf 3.361). This reflects Plato’s description in Leg. 839a of those who practice intercourse para physin as “sowing seed on rocks and stones”.
I. Josephus 1. Against Apion In a discussion of the Jewish marriage laws (2.190-219) Josephus writes “The Law recognizes no sexual connexions, except the natural union of man and wife, and that only for the procreation of children. Sodomy (ten arrenas arrenon) it abhors, and punishes any guilty of such assault with death” (2.199 [24]). Here Josephus confines sexuality to procreation, like Plato. He records the Torah’s punishment for not only the active, but also the passive partner- death “for outrage upon a male, for consent of one so tempted to such abuse” (2.215[31]).
In 2.273 Josephus defends the Jews’ preference for their laws by criticising the propensity of other nations to repudiate theirs. He gives as an example the swing of the peoples of Elis and Thebes against the “unnnatural vice” (ten para physin... tous arrenas mixeos...) (2.273[38]).
Josephus clearly places these attitudes within the context of the Jewish law; it is from the Torah that he obtains the main idea that homoerotic activity is prohibited. But he has absorbed the extrabiblical concept that it is para physin because it does not lead to procreation.
2. Jewish War In BJ IV 560-63 Josephus describes a band of Galilean zealots operating in Jerusalem, who not only murdered and plundered the rich, but “unscrupulously indulged in effeminate practices”, dressing and decorating themselves as women. Josephus emphasises that they also imitated “the passions of women” (pathe psunaikon enimounto), “wallowing as in a brothel” (hos porneios) and polluting the city with their deeds.
The zealots’ activities combine both sexual aggression and violence:
Yet, while they wore women’s faces, their hands were murderous, and approaching with mincing steps they would suddenly become warriors and whipping out their swords from under their dyed mantles transfix whomever they met. (563)
Three elements of the zealots’ behaviour are under attack: their violence, their effeminate appearance, and their effeminate sexual excess.
Transvestism (to use a modern term) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:5; Josephus couches the zealots’ behaviour in gender terms, indicating that both their dressing up as women and their homoerotic behaviour is a transgression of sexual/gender roles.
3. Jewish Antiquities In Ant. 15:25-30 Josephus describes how Quintus Dellius brought Antony’s attention to the beauty of Aristobulus, the sixteen year old son of Herod and Mariamne. The motive for this is clearly stated. Dellius was “trying to entice Antony into (sexual) pleasures” (pros tas hedonas). Having rejected the boy’s sister for political reasons. Antony requested that the boy be sent to him “in an outwardly respectable way”. Herod declined to send Aristobulus because he knew that Antony was “ready to use him for erotic purposes” (tois erotikois).
Cassius Dio 49:39 describes Dellius as having been the paidika of Antony. While Josephus does not refer to a previous relationship between them, he presents a picture of two men who assist each other in the sexual pursuit of a young man. Whether this is a true representation or not, it is Josephus’ attitude which is important, and his tone is clearly abhorrent.
J. Summary Homoerotic activity between adult males, and pederasty. were the major targets of writers in the texts we have. Female homoeroticism, promiscuity, and homosexual rape were also mentioned. Where the biblical injunctions against homoerotic behaviour were simple and non-specific, the Jewish writers applied those injunctions to their hellenistic milieu and responded in relative detail to activities which contravened their beliefs. This can be seen in the strength of the response to pederasty.
Among the justifications for their stance on homoeroticism several writers refer to gender issues. Male effeminacy and passivity are to be rejected; and the female who takes an active role in sex or who tries to cross gender boundaries in other ways is condemned. This reflects the gender classifications implicit in the Leviticus and Sodom texts.
Added to this complex is a significant new factor, the introduction of the Greek concept of kata/para physin. In Philo’s case (and possibly that of Pseudo-Phocylides) this is on the basis of procreative capacity.
These new themes, of transgression against nature on the basis of procreative capacity and gender roles, are present in the majority of texts contemporaneous with Paul.It is interesting that Paul uses these thems almost incidentally. Instead he returns to the concept of idolatry, probably because it was relevant to the focus of his attack: sexual immorality associated with idolatry, rather than pederasty or other homoerotic behaviours. |