Philo on homosexuality

-->

Gen 19 does not condemn homosexuality.  It condemns bullying.  It condemns the possibility of homosexual rape.  It does not homosexuality itself.  So how did the general understanding that the text condemns homosexuality occur?

From Philo, who describes it in a degree of detail that is unexpected coming from the ancient world, and in a way which demonstrates that the phrases used in the Pauline letters is something other than a matter of sensitivity (which didn’t exist in the public sphere in that age in any case).

On Abraham 26:133-6:

Η Σοδομιτων χορα, μοιρα της Χανανιιδος γης, ην υοτερον ωνομασαν Συριαν Παλαιστινην, αδικηματων μυριων οσων γεμισθεισα και μαλιστα των εκ γαστριμαργιας και λαγνειας οσα τε μεγεθη και πληθη των αλλων ηδονων επιτειχισασα ηδη παρα τω  δικαστη των ολων κατεγνωστο.  Αιτιον δε της περι το ακολασταινειν αμεριας εγεντο τοις οικητορσιν η των χορηγιων επαλληλος αφθονια´ βαθυγιεος γαρ και ευυδρος  ουσα η χωρα παντιοων ανα παν ετος ευφορια καρπων εχρητο´ μεγιστη δ αρχη κακων ως ειπε τις ουκ απο σκοπου τα λιαν αγαθα.

* The land of the Sodomites, a part of the land of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasuer with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All.  The inhabitants owed this extreme license to the never-failing lavishness of their sources of wealth, for, deep-soiled and well-watered as it was, the land had every year a prolific harvest of all manner of fruits, and the chief beginning of evils, as one has aptly said, is good in excess.

        We note that Philo begins by telling us that the trouble comes from somewhere that is not Judea, not Israel, not Egypt:  it is from the Canaanites.  This is the source of the claim made by contemporary scholars that the prohibition refers not to homosexuality per se, but to specific practices that came from Canaanites.

ων αδυνατουντες φερειν τον κορον ωσπερ τα θρεμματα σκιρτωντες απαυχενιζουσι τον της φυσεως νομον, ακρατον πολυν και οψοφαγιας και οχειας εκθεσμους μεταδιωκοντες´ ου γαρ μονον θηλυμανουντες αλλοτριους γαμους δειφθειρον αλλα και ανδρες  οντες αρρεσιν επιβαινοντες την κοινην προς τους παχοντας οι δρωντες φυσιν ουκ αιδουμενοι απιδοσπορουντες ηλεγχοντο μεν ατελη γονην σπειροντες, ο δ ελεγχος προς ουδεν ην οφελος, υπο βιαιοτερας νικωμενων επιθυμιας.  Ειτ εκ του κατ ολιγον εθιζοντες τα γυναικων υπομενειν τους ανδρας γεννηθεντας θηλειαν κατεσκευασαν αυτοις νοσον, κακον δυσμαχον, ου μονον τα σωματα μαλακοτητε και θρυψει γυναικουντες, αλλα και τας ψυχας αγεννεστερας απεργαζομενοι, και το γε επ αυτους ηκον μερος το συμπαν ανθρωπων γενος διεφθειρον´ει γουν Ελληνες ομου και βαρβαροι συμωνησαντες εζηλωσαν τας τοιαυτας ομιλιας, ηρημωντο αν εξης αι πολεις ωσπερ λοιμωδει νοσω κενωθεισαι,

* Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to keep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse.  Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males, without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive;  and so when they tired to beget children, they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed.  Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them.  Then, as little by little, they accustomed those who by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease.  For not only did they soften their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness, but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind.  Certainly, had Greeks and barbarians joined together in affecting such unions, city after city would have become a desert, as though depopulated by a pestilential sickness.

     Philo says “men mounted males,” which is the basis for the suggestion that it is not homosexuality that is prohibited, but pederasty/pedophilia.  Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the issue which Philo identifies as the actual problem:  the fact that the interaction does not produce progeny. 

      The prohibition in Leviticus is based on the understanding that one or the other of the partners would have the relinquish ownership of the progeny, which would result in the end of that partner’s family line.  Philo is in a culture where males adopt other males to perpetuate family lines.  He notes that male interaction with male would not produce progeny. Because he is in a culture where males adopt other males to perpetuate family lines, he cannot inform his audience that this adoption, with its consequent sundering of a family line on the part of the male who had to relinquish ownership, is prohibited.  However, he retains the essential element of the prohibition:  the issue of progeny.

      We note that Philo self-identifies as Greek because Philo says “Greeks and barbarians,” which tells us that Philo sees himself as a Greek, rather than a Judean, who would call the “other” εθνοι: nations.  We also note that in Romans 1:14, “Paul” also refers to “Greeks and barbarians.”  This suggests that “Paul’s” source was Philo.

27:137-9

λαβων δε ο θεος οικτον ατε σωτηρ και φιλανθρωπος τας μεν κατα φυσιν ανδρων και γυναικων συνοδους γινομενος ενεκα παιδων σπορας ηυξησεν ως ενι μαλιστα, τας δ εκφυλους και εκθεσμους διαμισησας εσβεσε και τους οργωντας επι ταυτας προβαλομενος ουχι τας εν εθει καινουργησας δ εκτοπους και παρηλλαγμενας τιμωριας ετιμωρησατο.  Κελευει γαρ εξαιφνης τον αερα νεφωθεντα πολυν ομβρω οθχ υδατος αλλα πυρος υειν´ αθροας δε νιφουσης αδιαστατω και απαυστω ρυμη φλογος εκαιοντο μεν αγροι και λειμωνες και λασια αλση και ελη δασυτατα και δρυμοι βαθεις, εκαιετο δ η πεδιας και ο του σιτου και των αλλων σπαρτων απας καρπος, εκαιετο δε και της ορεινης η δενδοφορος, στελεχων ριζαις ουταις εμπιπραμενων

* God, moved by pity for mankind whose Savior and Lord He was, gave increase in the greatest possible degree to the unions which men and women naturally make for begetting children, the licentious and ruinous he separated and quenched, working on them and throwing them forth, new and outside, he punished them with a different punishment.  He told the air to grow suddenly overclouded, and pour forth a great rain, not of water, but of fire.  When the flames streamed down massed in one constant and perpetual rush, they burned up the fields and meadows, the leafy groves, the overgrowths of the marshland and the dense thickets.  They burned the plainland and all the fruit of the corn and the other crops.  They burned the forest-land on the mountains, where trunks and roots alike were consumed.

[My translation.  The published translation says: “”abominated and extinguished this unnatural and forbidden intercourse, and those who lusted for such he cast forth and chastised with punishments not of the usual kind but startling and extraordinary, newly created for this purpose.”  The problem?  There is no word that actually translates as “abominated.”  That is a little problem…]

We note in this passage that Philo relates how the land was punished, not how the people were.  The people were “cast out” (as Adam and Chava were from the original garden) and the fertile land was made arid.  Thus, according to Philo, the great sin was not homosexuality, per se, but failing to produce progeny. 

It should be noted that Philo's commentary on Genesis 19 reflected general Roman opinion on sexuality.  Some sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman society differ markedly from those in later Western society.  Greco-Roman cultic worship supported sexuality as an aspect of prosperity for the state.  Individuals might turn to private religious practice or "magic" for improving their erotic lives or reproductive health. It was considered natural and unremarkable for adult males to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes, and pederasty was condoned as long as the younger partner was not a freeborn Roman. There are no Latin and no Greek words for "homosexual" and "heterosexual"  No moral censure was directed at the adult male who enjoyed sex acts with either women or males of inferior status, as long as his behavior revealed no weaknesses or excesses, and did not infringe on the rights and prerogatives of his male peers. Sex in moderation with male prostitutes or slaves was not regarded as improper or vitiating to masculinity, if the male citizen took the active and not the receptive role. Hypersexuality was condemned morally and medically in both men and women.