Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

John Boswell's views

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Halsall

unread,
Aug 8, 1993, 3:20:16 PM8/8/93
to
If you are not interested in any more discussion of the Bible,
Catholicism, and homosexuality, do not read this.

Various posters, including me, have in reference to Biblical texts
on homosexuality referred to the writings of John Boswell on the
subject. Since the most salient points of Boswell's discussion were
posted on the NET, I thought I would repost them.

As a note, however, I would add that much more work has been
done on the word "arsenokoitoi" which indictates that it derives
from the Greek of the Levitical prohibitions.

**********************************************************************
From John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality_,
pp. 106-114

Footnotes omitted, Greek text transliterated. Any transcription errors,
mine. This is part of a larger chapter on the Scriptures in the book.
*************

Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his
life, never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to
oppose homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was
purely on the basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.

There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been
supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in I Corinthians
6:9 and one in I Timothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the
early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded
from the kingdom of heaven.

The first of the two, "malakos" (basically, "soft"), is an extremely
common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the
meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with senses as varied as
"liquid", "cowardly", "refined", "weak willed", "delicate", "gentle",
and "debauched". In a specifically moral context it very frequently
means "licentious", "loose", or "wanting in self-control". At a broad
level, it might be translated as either "unrestrained" or "wanton", but
to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay
people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to
designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts
generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the
Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.

What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church
through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the
twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation.
This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the
early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to
the stigmatization of homosexuality. 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 entrance to heaven, the
condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely
despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or
theologians.

The second word, "arsenokoitai", is quite rare, and its application to
homosexuality in particular is more understandable. The best evidence,
however, suggests very strongly that it did not connote homosexuality
to Paul or his contemporaries but meant "male prostitute" until well
into the fourth century, after which it became confused with a variety
of words for disapproved sexual activity and was often equated with
homosexuality.

The remaining passage, Romans 1:26-27, does not suffer from mistrans-
lation, although little attention has been paid to the ramifications of
its wording: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet" (KJV).

It is sometimes argued that the significance of the passage lies in its
connection with idolatry: i.e., that Paul censures the sexual behavior
of the Romans because he associates such behavior with orgiastic pagan
rites in honor of false gods. This might seem to be suggested by the
Old Testament condemnations of temple prostitution. Paul may have been
familiar with temple prostitution, both homosexual and heterosexual,
and it is reasonable to conjecture that he is here warning the Romans
against the immorality of the kadeshim. The fact that the overall
structure of the chapter juxtaposes the sexual activities in question
with the superstitious beliefs of the Romans adds further credence to
this theory, as do possible Old Testament echoes.

Under closer examination, however, this argument proves to be inade-
quate. First of all, there is no reason to believe that homosexual
temple prostitution was more prevalent than heterosexual or that Paul,
had he been addressing himself to such practices, would have limited
his comments to the former. Second, it is clear that the sexual
behavior itself is objectionable to Paul, not merely its associations.
Third, and possibly most important, Paul is not describing cold-blooded,
dispassionate acts performed in the interest of ritual or ceremony: he
states very clearly that the parties involved "burned in their lust one
toward another" ([greek text omitted]). It is unreasonable to infer
from the passage that there was any motive for the behavior other than
sexual desire.

On the other hand, it should be recognized that the point of the
passage is not to stigmatize sexual behavior of any sort but to condemn
the Gentiles for their general infidelity. There was a time, Paul
implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but
they rejected it (vv. 19-23). The reference to homosexuality is simply
a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux
of this argument. Once the point has been made, the subject of
homosexuality is quickly dropped and the major argument resumed
(vv. 28ff.).

What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly
not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by
apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans I in fact,
is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off
the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the
thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally"
inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally"
inclined to monotheism. What caused the Romans to sin was not that
they _lacked_ what Paul considered proper inclinations but that they
_had_ them: they held the truth, but "in unrighteousness" (v. 18),
because "they did not see fit to retain Him in their knowledge" (v. 28).

This aspect of the verses, overlooked by modern scholarship, did not
escape the attention of early Christian writers. Noting that Paul
carefully characterized the persons in question as having _abandoned_
the "natural use", Saint John Chrysostom commented that Paul thus:

deprives them of any excuse, . . . observing of their women that they
"did change the natural use". No one can claim, he points out, that
she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or
that because she was unable to satisfy her desire she fell into this
monstrous depravity. Only those possessing something can change it ....

Again, he points out the same thing about the men, in a different way,
saying they "left the natural use of the woman". Likewise he casts aside
with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had
[legitimate] enjoyment and abandoned it, going after a different one,
but that spurning the natural they pursued the unnatural.

Although the idea that homosexuality represented a congenital physical
characteristic was widespread in the Hellenistic world--and undoubtedly
well known to Chrysostom--it is not clear that Paul distinguished in
his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent
sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic
homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day
recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that--whether or
not he was aware of their existence--Paul did not discuss gay _persons_
but only homosexual acts comitted by heterosexual persons.

There is, however, no clear condemnation of homosexual acts in the
verses in question. The expression "against nature" is the standard
English equivalent of Paul's Greek phrase "para physin" which was first
used in this context by Plato. Its original sense has been almost
wholly obscured by 2,000 years of repetition in stock phrases and by
the accretion of associations inculcated by social taboos, patristic
and Reformation theology, Freudian psychology, and personal misgivings.

The concept of "natural law" was not fully developed until more than a
millennium after Paul's death, and it is anachronistic to read it into
his words. For Paul, "nature" was not a question of universal law or
truth but, rather, a matter of the _character_ of some person or group
of persons, a character which was largely ethnic and entirely human:
Jews are Jews "by nature", just as Gentiles are Gentiles "by nature".
"Nature" is not a moral force for Paul: men may be evil or good "by
nature", depending on their own disposition. A possessive is always
understood with "nature" in Pauline writings: it is not "nature" in the
abstract but someone's "nature", the Jews' "nature" or the Gentiles'
"nature" or even the pagan gods' "nature" ("When ye knew not God, ye
did service unto them which by nature [i.e., by _their_ nature] are no
gods", Gal. 4:8, KJV).

"Nature" in Romans I :26, then, should be understood as the personal
nature of the pagans in question. This is made even clearer by the
strikingly similar passage in the _Testament of Japhtali_, a roughly
contemporary document whose comment on this subject was obviously
influenced by (if not an influence on) Paul's remarks. "The Gentiles,
deceived and having abandoned the Lord, changed their order.... [Be
ye not therefore] like Sodom, which changed the order of its nature.
Likewise also the Watchers changed the order of their nature . . .
(3.3.4-5).

"Against" is, moreover, a somewhat misleading translation of the prep-
osition "para". In New Testament usage "para" connotes not "in opposi-
tion to" (expressed by "kata") but, rather, "more than", "in excess
of"; immediately before the passage in question, for example, what the
King James renders as "more than" (the creator) is the same preposition.
Finally, this exact same phrase "para physin" is used later in the same
epistle to describe the activity of God in saving the Gentiles: "For if
thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert
graffed contrary to nature [para physin] into a good olive tree: how
much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into
their own olive tree?" (Rom. I l :24, KJV). Since God himself is here
described as acting "against nature", it is inconceivable that this
phrase necessarily connotes moral turpitude. Rather, it signifies
behavior which is unexpected, unusual, or different from what would
occur in the normal order of things: "beyond nature", perhaps, but not
"immoral". There is no implication of the contravening of "natural
law" in Paul's use of this phrase, and for Christians familiar with
all of the books which now comprise the New Testament the phrase may
have had no negative implications at all; in 2 Peter 2 :12, for
example, a similar passage employs "natural" as a term of derogation.

Paul believed that the Gentiles knew of the truth of God but rejected
it and likewise rejected their true "nature" as regarded their sexual
appetites, going beyond what was "natural" for them and what was
approved for the Jews. It cannot be inferred from this that Paul
considered mere homoerotic attraction or practice morally reprehensible,
since the passage strongly implies that he was not discussing persons
who were by inclination gay and since he carefully observed, in regard
to both the women and the men, that they changed or abandoned the
"natural use" to engage in homosexual activities.

In sum, there is only one place in the writings which eventually became
the Christian Bible where homosexual relations per se are clearly
prohibited--Leviticus--and the context in which this prohibition
occurred rendered it inapplicable to the Christian community, at least
as moral law. It is almost never cited as grounds for objection to
homosexual acts (except allegorically; see chap 6). The notion that
Genesis 19--the account of Sodom's destruction--condemned homosexual
relations was the result of myths popularized during the early
centuries of the Christian era but not universally accepted until much
later and only erratically invoked in discussions of the morality of
gay sexuality. Many patristic authors concluded that the point of the
story was to condemn inhospitality to strangers; others understood it
to condemn rape; most interpreted it in broadly allegorical terms, only
tangentially related to sexuality. There was no word in classical
Hebrew or Greek for "homosexual", and there is no evidence, linguistic
or historical, to suggest that either the kadeshim of the Old Testament
or the arsenokotai of the New were gay people or particularly given to
homosexual practices. On the contrary, it is clear that these words
merely designated types of prostitutes: in the case of the former,
those associated with pagan temples; in that of the latter, active (as
opposed to passive) male prostitutes servicing either sex.

Romans I did not condemn homosexual behavior as "against nature" in the
sense of the violation of "natural law". No clear idea of "natural
law" existed in Paul's time or for many centuries thereafter. To Paul,
the activities in question were beyond nature in the sense of
"extraordinary, peculiar", as was the salvation of the Gentiles,
described with the same phrase. Moreover, the persons referred to were
considered by influential early Christian theologians to have been
necessarily heterosexual (i.e., "naturally" attracted to the opposite
sex). There was no implication in the passage that homosexual acts,
much less homosexual persons, were _necessarily_ sinful.

--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

he

Stephen Barr

unread,
Aug 11, 1993, 1:26:02 PM8/11/93
to
Actually, I am reading the KJV. I know it is hard,
but let us try to see what is implied by what is written,
and not be hypnotized by the letter of what is written.
I am quite aware, Paul, that in Romans 1:20 St. Paul only
mentions among the "invisible things" which can be known
from creation God's eternal power and Godhead. But think:
St. Paul is in the middle of an argument whose conclusion
is that the "unrighteous" "are without excuse". Without
excuse for what? Just for unbelief in God's power and Godhead?
As is clear from what follows, for St. Paul this "ungodliness
and righteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"
is a moral unrighteousness that involves or entails all the
sins catalogued in the rest of chapter 1. So he talks about
"being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, etc" in verses 29-31.
The structure of his arguments in verse 20 is that
because the invisible things of God are manifest in creation
the unrighteous "are without excuse" for their unbelief or
for "holding the truth in unrighteousness" and for all the
unrighteousness that flows from that. This straightforwardly
implies that those invisible things which can be known from
creation have *moral* implications.

Now, to Romans 2:14-15. Yes, I am quite aware that St. Paul
spoke of "the deed of the Law" or the "work of the Law" being
written on the heart. I am also quite aware that by Law he meant
Torah. Not only do I read the KJV, but I read the Jerome Biblical
Commentary where these points are all lucidly set forth by Joseph
Fitzmyer. Again, for all your pedantic learning, you have failed
to THINK. Think! As Fitzmyer points out, St. Paul does not imagine that
*all* of the prescriptions of Torah are written on the hearts of
the Gentiles, including the details of Sabbath observance and
dietary laws and ritual. How does Fitzmyer know this? Because St. Paul
was not an idiot! It is quite obvious that St. Paul did not mean the
whole Torah, but primarily the moral teachings, what we would call the
universal moral law.

So, I reiterate. In Rom 1:20; Rom 2:14-15; and Rom 1:26-7
we see quite clearly the constituents of natural-law thinking
adumbrated. Yes, natural law theory is various and complicated.
See my previous remarks on the complete irrelevancy of that
observation.

Let me make a further point I forgot to make earlier. It
has to do with St. Paul's use of "nature" in Rom 1:26-7.
You say, rather lamely, that he had no particular reason for
introducing this idea in these verses. That is to say: you cannot
explain it! I can. My explanation wins over your non-explanation.
My theory has more explanatory power.
First, let us dispose of a theory that I think Boswell is
espousing, but that some have espoused here on blc, at any rate.
And that is that St.Paul is talking about the specific nature
of the individual or individuals he had in mind in verses 26-27,
and not about some common nature possessed by all men and women.
In verse 26 (KJV) he says "their women did change *the* natural use"
[emphasis mine]. If I say Jane Doe changed *her* natural use,
then I am referring to what was natural (or customary, since
you believe physis can mean custom here) for Jane Doe. If St. Paul
had said the women had changed "their natural use" etc, the passage
could be interpreted to refer to a personal rather than a common
nature. Similarly, in verse 27 (KJV) "leaving the natural use
of the woman". This is, if possible, even clearer! So, whatever
St. Paul meant by natural, he *cannot* have meant the individual
bent(s) of "the men" and "their women" in question.

But why did St. Paul introduce the idea of "nature" here?
The answer is not far to seek. There is a parallel in verses 25-27
between, on the one hand, "changing the truth of God into a lie" (25)
and "chang[ing] the natural use" (26), "leaving the natural use" (27).
St. Paul sees a fittingness in the correspondence of the sin and the
consequence. "They" have turned from the true God to a false
substitute (and "worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator"). Appropriately, their sin takes the form of turning
from the "natural" use to an unnatural substitute. This is obvious.
But for pedants who require the endorsement of well-known scholars
see the discussion of Fitzmyer in the JBC.

Let me say why I referred to the fact that St. Paul dwelt
at somewhat greater length (got that, Paul?) on the homosexuality
than on backbiting etc. --- You know, arguing with you, Paul, is like
swatting mosquitoes. ---
I think many people are mislead by the relatively heavy emphasis
on homosexuality in chapter 1 into thinking that St. Paul in
vss 26-27 was primarily making a point about homosexuality.
And therefore -- they think --- he must have had specific
homosexuals or groups of homosexuals (or heterosexuals who
took up homosexuality) in mind. His basic point was about
the Gentiles and Jews who had not received the gospel. The former
did not know God (though they should have)
or had not retained this knowledge. The latter held the truth in
unrighteousness. The whole is a sermon on the unrighteousness
of man without Christ. All the sins mentioned are used as
illustrations. They are not the sins of this group or that,
these in Antioch or those in Rome. They are the sins of all
the "ungodly". St. Paul was not teaching that backbiting,
fornication, trucebreaking, or homosexuality were immoral.
He *presupposes* it. He assumes his hearers know that. Otherwise,
his whole diatribe (if you will forgive the expression) would
have no force!! He is saying, in effect, "you see what people
do when they do have Christ?".
D Ouch! that should be *don't* have Christ.
D
d
There were probably several reasons why heavier emphasis is
given to homosexuality. There was a greater contrast between
the views of the Jewish/Christian mind and the pagan mind
on this than on some of the other sins. There is the parallelism
of turning away from God and turning away from "the natural use"
that St. Paul wished to exploit. He may have felt that this sin
was particularly gross and so had more rhetorical punch.
My point was that this (in spite of being treated separately
and at greater length) was part of a whole catalogue of offenses
and should be understood as part of a *collective* portrait
(maybe we would say today "a composite portrait") of all the
ungodly. Therefore we can not read into the text distinctions
among groups of homosexaully active people. That would be
totally foreign to St. Paul's purpose here.

The thing about swatting mosquitoes is that one wishes one could
spend the time more productively, but they keep on coming!

I know it is a favorite game of the historians of dogma,
and exegetes to emphasize the danger of reading later, more
fully developed and precise ideas back into earlier writings.
I call it a game, but it is an important methodological canon.
It is true that one will not find the whole Augustinian theory
of Original Sin in St. Paul, for example. It is certainly extremely
easy to be mislead into seeing the precision and clarity that
characterizes our own ideas on something in the writings from
a much earlier stage of development. But to keep trotting out one's
technical skills even in contexts where they are irrelevant to
the point at issue is pedantry. It is an endearing fault, to be sure.
It is like the child who wants to show everyone his new toy.
Yes. "Law" for St. Paul and "law" for Aquinas are not identical.
Yes "nature" in Rom 1: 26-7 is not identical with "nature"
in this that or the other much later writer. Nu?
As Newman said, ideas are pregnant. They are capable of
development. The development of an idea can bring out implications,
make patent what is only latent, make clear what is ambiguous,
and decide what is unresolved, without necessarily being untrue to
the idea in its original form. Just as anachronism is wrong, so
is an exaggerated view that would find no consonance between the
ideas of men in very different cultures, and thus make comprehension
of the past inpossible. The precise shades of meaning "nature" as
used in Rom 1:26-7 had for St. Paul may be an interesting question.
But it is not necessary to completely solve this question to
answer the questions at hand.

Steve Barr


I

Christopher Monsour

unread,
Aug 11, 1993, 4:39:08 PM8/11/93
to
In article <9308101103...@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU> Paul Halsall writes:
>On Aug 9 Stephen Barr <15...@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU>
>wrote
>
>> I feel compelled to say that this set of arguments by
>>Mr. Boswell is one of the least convincing treatments of a
>>text I have ever come across! Really, I would find it easier
>>to believe that homosexuality was not always wrong than to
>>believe the incredibly strained reasoning Boswell uses.
>
>It's Dr. Boswell, Stephen, and I doubt you mean the last statement.

It is customary to refer to an author by last name without honorific.

>> The point that the concept of "nature" has not a "moral
>>force" for St. Paul flies in the face of the text. As we noted,
>>the word nature can mean many things, and can be used by one
>>and the same author to mean different things in different contexts.
>>The question is not whether St. Paul uses it in a morally neutral
>>sense in other places. The question is what sense of "natural"
>>is meant by him in Romans 1?
>
>So how do find out how a writer is using a word? By applying a
>philosophical tradition of much later development to the words, or
>by looking at other uses by the writer. I know what I think is the
>better hermeneutic.

Well, if a word is capable of being used in many senses (e.g., `nature' in
English), you may conclude that an author could not have meant the same
word always in the same sense, if otherwise the text becomes nonsense.
Of course, we cannot simply assume that a word was capable of only
one meaning, and interpreters more near in time to the writer may have
had more texts from the writer's time and perhaps have been able to
understand the writer's words better than we. So both hermeneutics are
important.

Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour

Paul Halsall

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 12:10:25 AM8/12/93
to
On Aug 11 Stephen Barr <15...@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU>
posted on this topic

Swatting mosquitoes, eh? Stephan. With the length of your
posts lately its been more like burying Elephant turds :)

......

>I reiterate. In Rom 1:20; Rom 2:14-15; and Rom 1:26-7
>we see quite clearly the constituents of natural-law thinking
>adumbrated.

I demur.

......

> First, let us dispose of a theory that I think Boswell is
>espousing, but that some have espoused here on blc, at any rate.
>And that is that St.Paul is talking about the specific nature
>of the individual or individuals he had in mind in verses 26-27,
>and not about some common nature possessed by all men and women.
>In verse 26 (KJV) he says "their women did change *the* natural use"
>[emphasis mine]. If I say Jane Doe changed *her* natural use,
>then I am referring to what was natural (or customary, since
>you believe physis can mean custom here) for Jane Doe. If St. Paul
>had said the women had changed "their natural use" etc, the passage
>could be interpreted to refer to a personal rather than a common
>nature. Similarly, in verse 27 (KJV) "leaving the natural use
>of the woman". This is, if possible, even clearer! So, whatever
>St. Paul meant by natural, he *cannot* have meant the individual
>bent(s) of "the men" and "their women" in question.

Nothing like a KJV fundamentalist! You may or may not be
correct about what St. Paul is talking about here, but you cannot
prove it from grammar.

In v.26: "hai te gay theleiai auton methellaxan..". "Auton" here is
a genitive plural meaning "of them". Who are "them"? One has to cast
all the way back to v18 to find "them" - and "they" are simply wicked
men. All this does is tie the sentance into the whole passage.

Now, v.26 continued: "...methellaxan ten phusiken chresin eis ten para
^^^
phusin". And v.27 "...hoi arsenes, aphentes ten phusiken chresin tes
^^^
theleias".

Now let me state a very simple rule of Greek grammer: "the article often
takes the place of an unemphatic possesive pronoun". There is no reason
at all to say that Paul *cannot* have meant specific cases here.

The problem with you Stephen, is that for all your bravado, Boswell
can read Greek and you have to depend on the Jerome Biblical
Commentary [what's the subtitle - "for spoonfed intellects"?]

.....

> I think many people are mislead by the relatively heavy emphasis
>on homosexuality in chapter 1 into thinking that St. Paul in
>vss 26-27 was primarily making a point about homosexuality.
>And therefore -- they think --- he must have had specific
>homosexuals or groups of homosexuals (or heterosexuals who
>took up homosexuality) in mind. His basic point was about
>the Gentiles and Jews who had not received the gospel. The former
>did not know God (though they should have)
>or had not retained this knowledge. The latter held the truth in
>unrighteousness. The whole is a sermon on the unrighteousness
>of man without Christ. All the sins mentioned are used as
>illustrations. They are not the sins of this group or that,
>these in Antioch or those in Rome. They are the sins of all
>the "ungodly". St. Paul was not teaching that backbiting,
>fornication, trucebreaking, or homosexuality were immoral.
>He *presupposes* it. He assumes his hearers know that. Otherwise,
>his whole diatribe (if you will forgive the expression) would
>have no force!! He is saying, in effect, "you see what people

>do when they don't have Christ?".

In other words, Paul appeals to popular Jewish prejudice to illustrate
his wider point and these words have no dogmatic impact at all. All they
show is that Paul did not like the homosexual activity he was aware of.
He didn't like women speaking in Church, or uncovered heads either. These
are his personal preferences, so to speak. Wrt to head coverings he
even admits as such. The purpose of Romans is to lat down a
certain view of the economy of salvation, not to redo
the Torah so that each statement is used to develop a moral or
ritual law from.

This has been MY point all along.

Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu

John W. Woolley

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 2:21:09 PM8/12/93
to
Paul Halsall writes:
> All they [the passages from Romans 1]

> show is that Paul did not like the homosexual activity he was aware of.
> He didn't like women speaking in Church, or uncovered heads either. These
> are his personal preferences, so to speak. Wrt to head coverings he
> even admits as such.

Sam says robbery is bad. Sam does not like robbery. Sam says
Pepsi is bad. Sam does not like Pepsi. Sam "even admits" that
his dislike of Pepsi is a personal preference. These are Sam's
personal preferences. Sam's dislike of robbery is a personal
preference. I like robbery. That's *my* personal preference.
So don't quote Sam at me.

-- Fr. John

Paul Halsall

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 3:34:01 PM8/12/93
to
On Aug 12 "John W. Woolley" <j...@EVOLVING.COM>
wrote

As John has just demonstrated very well, the morality of various
issues cannot be decided by appealing to the words of St. Paul, especially
when he Paul is not addressing an issue directly. Whether or not Sam's
or Paul's statements reflect personal preferences or some ultimate
moral reality has to be decided by appeal to some outside authority.
Logically of course this outside authority cannot cite Sam or Paul
to establish what is an what is not a personal preference.

Thanks John, I could not have done this better myself.

Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu

Stephen Barr

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 4:31:20 PM8/12/93
to
There seem to be two arguments that Rom 1:26-27
does not involve a general condemnation of homosexuality.
Both have been advanced by Paul Halsall. They seem
inconsistent with each other.

Argument I: "Paul appeals to popular Jewish prejudice
to illustrate his wider point... All that
this shows is that Paul did not like the homosexual

activity he was aware of."

(Paul Halsall, who says this is also Boswell's
point.)

Argument II: Romans 1:26-27 should be translated as
"... for even their women did change their [own]
natural use [or custom] into that which is against
[or beyond] their nature [or custom], And likewise
also the men, leaving their [own] natural use
of the woman..."

I am willing to trust Boswell's and Halsall's knowledge
of Greek usage that this is a possible reading. I am, myself,
blissfully ignorant of Greek. The question is why no one has ever
thought to translate the passage this way before. The answer
is supposed to be that the translators and exegetes up to this
time have been blinded by their own prejudiced attitudes about
homosexuality.
But, how does this square with Argument I? Paul himself
is supposed to have been prejudiced. Indeed he "appeals to
popular Jewish prejudice." I assume that Paul was not a hypocrite,
and so he would not have appealed to a prejudice he did not share.
So we are asked to believe in Argument II that Paul
was not prevented by prejudice from intending a meaning that
all generations up to now *were* prevented from seeing by prejudice.

A member of the KKK gets up and says "I hate those
bloodsucking, moneylending Jews!" Along comes someone and says
"he is just appealing to popular hatred of Jews, this just
is a product of his own bigotry," but then turns around and
says "what he really only said is that he hates *those Jews
who are bloodsucking, moneylenders* there is no indication that
he hates Jews as such. In fact if you carefully scrutinize his
words you will see that he is careful to phrase it this way.
Only the antisemitism of his interpreters has lead them to
overlook this nuance."

I argue that if St. Paul was appealing to and shared
a popular and presumably indiscriminate "dislike" (loathing?)
of homosexuality, he is unlikely to have intended the meaning
in Argument II.

Steve Barr.


Stephen Barr

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 4:39:23 PM8/12/93
to
Excuse me, does St. Paul say that women who do not cover
their heads are full of all unrighteousness, have turned the
truth of God into a lie, have a reprobate mind, have vile
passions, and so on? Let me dig out my KJV.

Steve Barr.

David W Sims

unread,
Aug 12, 1993, 4:52:36 PM8/12/93
to
Paul Halsall writes:
>John W. Woolley wrote
>>Paul Halsall writes:

>>> [This is Paul] All they [the passages from Romans 1]


>>> show is that Paul did not like the homosexual activity he was aware of.
>>> He didn't like women speaking in Church, or uncovered heads either. These
>>> are his personal preferences, so to speak. Wrt to head coverings he

>>> even admits as [m]uch.

>[This next is Father John]


>>Sam says robbery is bad. Sam does not like robbery. Sam says
>>Pepsi is bad. Sam does not like Pepsi. Sam "even admits" that
>>his dislike of Pepsi is a personal preference. These are Sam's
>>personal preferences. Sam's dislike of robbery is a personal
>>preference. I like robbery. That's *my* personal preference.
>>So don't quote Sam at me.

[This is Paul again]


>As John has just demonstrated very well, the morality of various
>issues cannot be decided by appealing to the words of St. Paul, especially
>when he Paul is not addressing an issue directly. Whether or not Sam's
>or Paul's statements reflect personal preferences or some ultimate
>moral reality has to be decided by appeal to some outside authority.
>Logically of course this outside authority cannot cite Sam or Paul
>to establish what is an what is not a personal preference.
>
>Thanks John, I could not have done this better myself.

[This is David]

Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul,

You recognize that most of your readers will make
a distinction (as in fact Father John has) between
those statements (e.g., "I don't like Pepsi," or
"I don't let a woman speak in the assembly,") where
Paul (the big one) says, "I don't have any teaching
from the Lord on this, but this is how *I* do it,"
and the rest of his epistles, where he clearly
expects us to take him as speaking for God? The
plain fact that Paul (St.) makes the distinction
argues that we his readers are supposed to under-
stand him that way.

I'm staying out of the *content* of the argument here:
just commenting on the form.

David

0 new messages