Thomas Kazen interprets biblical texts that modern readers have associated with homosexuality, and he seeks to situate them within ancient constructions of impurity (dirt), honour/shame and power or status. In doing so, Kazen seeks to articulate key differences between ancient and modern conceptions of same-sex relationships.
After a brief chapter arguing that human sexuality is a combination of social and biological factors, Kazen interprets related biblical texts. For example, he connects the impurity language of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18) to the social norm that asserted it was degrading for a male to be penetrated by a male of the same rank. Turning to the Sodom story and its early interpreters, Kazen argues that ancient people saw the problem of the story in the lack of hospitality, not in homoeroticism per se.
Approaching the New Testament texts, Kazen criticises standard translations of the Greek word arsenokoitai, which appears in the vice lists of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10. Because Greek translations of Leviticus 18 used the words arsēn (male) and koitē (bed), Kazen argues that the term arsenokoitēs ‘quite obviously refers to a man who, against the prohibition of the Holiness Code, lies “woman-lays” with another man and penetrates him’ (p. 37). In contrast to the word malakos (lit. ‘soft’; men who were penetrated by other men), Kazen understands arsenokoitai to indicate men who penetrated other men. Thus, he understands Paul’s vice list as criticism of both penetrator and penetrated. Regarding Romans 1:24–32, Kazen points out the way Paul’s language reflects cultural notions of impurity and dishonour, topics he takes up in later chapters. Kazen explains Paul’s negativity as a result of his Jewish identity, emphasising the importance of the Holiness Code within Second Temple Judaism: ‘Paul’s negative attitude… is quite easy to explain in view of his background as a Hellenistic Jew’ (p. 41).
Chapter 3 then takes up the topic of impurity, a subject of Kazen’s previous research. He elaborates on the concept in the Hebrew Bible, concluding that Paul’s use of ‘impurity’ in Romans 1:24 would have evoked similar aversion or disgust. This would have been true for Greek or Roman hearers as well, for they also had notions of impurity.
In chapter 4, Kazen takes up questions of power and subordination within sexual relationships. Evidence suggests ancient people imagined sex as hierarchical, with the penetrator ideally as the person with higher status. Although Greek culture allowed for same-sex relationships between boys and men, Kazen notes that even here pederasty could be critiqued as unrestrained, that is, void of the virtue of self-control. For Romans, there was often no stigma attached to the penetrating male in a same-sex relationship, especially in the case of free men penetrating their enslaved men. However, the practice was sometimes criticised as self-indulgent, which Kazen attributes to Stoic thought.
The subject of chapter 5, honour and shame, is related to the previous chapter because, as Kazen argues, ‘what was honorable or shameful in an erotic relationship was therefore related to differences in status’ (p. 103). A man being penetrated was viewed as taking on a lower status and would thus bring dishonour to a higher-ranking person. Self-control, the cardinal virtue discussed in the previous chapter, was associated with honour.
In conclusion, Kazen draws out differences between ancient and modern views. In particular, he emphasises the ways that the ancients were concerned about the status of the individuals involved. Modern western cultures espouse an ideal that rejects hierarchical relationships between sexual partners, but ancient sexual relationships always imply a hierarchy.
Kazen’s desire to elaborate the importance of ancient norms of impurity, status and honour can help modern readers understand how the Bible does not apply directly to our own concept of homosexuality. He accomplishes a lot in a relatively short book. I was surprised, however, that Kazen did not engage some important contributions of other scholars that could challenge or add clarity to his argument.
First, Kazen’s idea that arsenokoitai ‘quite obviously’ refers to ‘male-bedders’ oversimplifies the matter. Paul’s use of this word is the first time it appears in Greek literature, and it is uncertain what the word means. (The choice of the NRSVue, ‘men who engage in illicit sex’, which Kazen characterises as ‘unspecific’ on p. 36, captures the uncertainty around the definition.) Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians, it is quite possible the word is a synonym of malakoi: that is, the two words may both have criticised freeborn men who allowed themselves to be penetrated (just as the words ‘thieves’, ‘the greedy’ and ‘swindlers’ in the same verse overlap in meaning). I was surprised that Kazen nowhere engaged in the familiar argument that arsenokoitai evoked an abusive or exploitative sexual relationship.
Second, Kazen’s argument that Paul was concerned with both penetrated and penetrator makes it seem that the objection to same-sex sexual relationships concerned the gender of the partners. This contradicts the ancient evidence that the concern was not gender but status (and sits in tension with Kazen’s own discussion of the importance of status). To explain why Paul’s view differs from the wider culture, Kazen turns to Leviticus. In doing so, he conveys a sense that the interpretation of Leviticus was constant, not imagining that Jewish readers likely interpreted Leviticus in ways that made sense with the cultural norms of their time. This makes Judaism appear monolithic.
Third, Kazen does not seem to acknowledge scholars’ arguments that ancient writings of Paul’s time widely associated same-sex sex with luxury and classed it alongside other indulgences like too much food or drink (see e.g. Sallust, Bell. Cat. 13.3; Juvenal, Sat. 2; Valerius Maximus, 8.1absol.12; Philo, Abr. 26). When same-sex sex was problematic, it was viewed as too much desire, not a different kind of desire, as in our modern social constructions. Being swept away by desire was a danger because it could lead to other abuses of power. From this perspective, Paul’s view is not uniquely Jewish but fits the wider culture’s critique of same-sex relationships as self-indulgent. Thus, although Kazen’s scholarship makes a useful contribution to the discussion of these wide-ranging texts, it is best read in partnership with the broader scholarly conversation.
