Located at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Catholic Handbook PURL: http://purl.oclc.org/NET/lgbh/ [A PURL is an OCLC maintained "Persistant URL" which will always point to the real location of a website] Thu, 23 Sep 1993 16:58:41 -0400 Free Catholic Mailing List Paul Halsall John Boswell on Romans 1 - The Criticism of Richard Hays On Sep 23 1993 Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> posted on "Hays vs Boswell on Romans 1 and homosexuality" The article under discussion is: Richard B. Hays is "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1", Journal of Religious Ethics, Spring 1986, pp 184-215. The book under discussion is Boswell's, _Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality_ {1980) Barr writes "Boswell had a number of distinct points about Romans 1 (almost all of which Hays shreds). Some had to do with the meaning of "para physin". This is virtually always rendered in translations of Romans 1 as "against nature" in a pejorative sense. Boswell argues (a) that "physis" here does not mean "nature" in the sense of an abstract universal moral order, or as it would be used in "natural law" moral arguments. [Boswell pp. 109-110] He argues both from the fact that clearly defined concepts of natural law did not exist in Paul's time, and from Paul's usage of "physis" elsewhere; and that "para" means usually and here in particular "in excess of" rather than "contrary to" or "against". [Boswell pp. 110-112] It turns out that the idea of certain behavior being immoral because "against nature" (para physin) was very well known in St. Paul's day both in Greek and in Hellenistic Jewish circles. It was an important concept in Stoic philosophy which had its roots as far back as Plato. Moreover the very words "para physin" were a stock phrase at the time." This is fairly typical of the attacks on Boswell to accuse him of ignoring information he should had address. In this case it would have helped Barr if hed had read Boswell. On p. 110 he specifically cites and discusses the use of the phrase "para phusin" by Plato, Philo and Plutarch. Quite apart from the fact that Plutarch lived after Paul [from 46 to c.119 AD] and uses "para phusin" as a term of approval on occasions, Boswell argues that Paul was not speaking from within the "matural law" tradition Hays describes. I would also add that the use of "unnatural" by Jewish authors *does not equate* with sinful. There is a very good discussion of Jewish attitudes to sex by Rabbi Michael Gold in Moment magazine [reprinted in the Manhattan Jewish Sentinel of September 15, 1993]. Gold specifically addresses what the issue of "natural and unnatural" means in Jewish context. Maimonides, writing much later than Paul of course, but within the Rabbinic tradition and also well aware of Greek philosophy [and hostile to homosexuality as well] here addressed the issue of "unnatural sex" between a husband and wife as follws "A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore he may do whatever he wishes with his wife. He may have intercoourse with her at any time he wishes and kiss her on whatever limb of her body he wants. He may have natural or unnatural sex, as long as he does not bring forth seed in vain." [as quoted by Gold]. Gold also adds "The issue of unnatural sex {biah lo k'darchah} is particularly difficult from a Jewish perspective. Unnatural sex refers to any sexual activity where semination is not in the traditional place, including oral sex, anal sex or "threshing within and winnowing without" [premature withdrawal]. TALMUDIC SOURCES TALK FREELY ABOUT SUCH SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND PERMIT IT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE." [my emphasis]. Thus it is not enough to show what Boswell freely admits, that the words "para phusin" could and did mean "unnatural" in some traditions at the time, but that a: Paul was in this case following or part of such a tradition and b: that he took "unnatural" to mean sinful. Boswell looks at all the 24 cases where para+accusitive occurs in Paul and concludes this was not his meaning. Whether one agrees with Boswell's conclusions or not, he was doing his work properly. Barr continued, "There are abundant instances, both in the Greco-Roman moralphilosophers and in literary texts, of the opposition between "natural" (kata physin) and "unnatural (para physin) behavior.These catagories played a major role in Stoicism, where right moral action is closely identified with action kata physin. In particular, the opposition between "natural" and "unnatural" isvery frequently used (in the absence of convenient Greek words for "heterosexual" and "homosexual") Again the ideas, and words to describe the ideas, existed in Greek long before Paul, as did the notion of congential homosexuality - discussed both by Plato and in the medical tradition. as a way of distinguishing heterosexual and homosexual behavior." Barr did not seem to realises that Hays was in effect giving a direct paraphrase of Boswell on page 109 and n.60 at the bottom of that page. Boswell frequently has such straw men put up against him, supposedly rperesent his views. For the following examples and others see the works of Furnish and Scroggs. By Scroggs here is meant Robin Scroggs, _The New Testament & Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate_ [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983]. It is true that [p.60] he see the background of "para phusin" in common Greek discussion of the subject. *But* Scroggsalso argues that the term was so common as not to be connected to any particular world or philosophical view - usually the phrase refers to the [incorrect] view that animals do not have homosexual sex [pp.59-60]. Scroggs discusses Romans 1:26-28 in much more detail on pp. 109-118 and concluded that this is an theological discussion with no ethical overtones. Scroggs argues that even in his passing reference Paul meant *pederasty* in its most aggressive form. He states "WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS AGAINST WAS THE IMAGE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS PEDERASTY AND PRIMARILY ITS MORE SORDID AND DEHUMANIZING DIMENSIONS" [p.126. Scrogg's emphasis], "The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: BIBLICAL JUDGEMENST AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO TODAY'S DEBATE. The should no longer be used in denominational disscusions about homosexuality, should in no way be used as a weapon to justify refusal of ordination, NOT BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT AUTHORATATIVE, but simple because it does not address the issues involved.", [p. 127 - again Scrogg's emphasis]. Now Scrogg's arguments are different from Boswell's [in some respects Boswell is more conservative], but he refers to Boswell's book admiringly throughout his book, and is clearly on the "gay" side of this discussion. Steven Barr often criticised me for not referring to an article I had not heard of; it seems a greater offense to omit the overall argument of a book one is quoting to attack Boswell! "The Stoic-Cynic preacher Dio Chrysostom, after charging that brothel- keeping dishonors the goddess Aphrodite "whose name stands for the natural (kata physin) intercourse and union of the male and female," goes on to suggest that a society which permits such practices will soon find its uncontrolled lusts leading to the still more deplorable practice of pederasty: 'Is there any possibility that this lecherous class would refrain from dishonoring and corrupting the males, making their clear and sufficient limit that set by nature (physis)? [rest deleted by me for brevity]. Likewise, Plutarch has Daphnaeus, one of the speakers in his "Dialogue on Love", disparage "union contrary to nature with males" (he para physin homilia pros arrenas), as contrasted to "the love between men and women," which is characterized as "natural" (te physei). A few sentenses later, Daphnaeus complains that those who "consort with males" willingly are guilty of "weakness and effeminacy," because "contrary to nature (para physin)," they "allow themselves in Plato's words 'to be covered and mounted like cattle'" (Dialogue on Love 751C,E). Plutarch's reference to Plato demonstrates the point that Paul did not originate the application of the kata physin/para physin dichotomy to heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Its common appearance in the writings of the Hellenistic moral philosophers is testimony to a convention that which can be traced back as least as far as Plato (Laws I.636C), almost invariably in contexts where a negative judgment is pronounced on the morality or propriety of the "unnatural" homosexual relations." See above for Plutarch, and other uses by him of "para phusin". See Boswell for a discussion of these texts, and Scroggs for a discussion of the his opinion that they mean that Paul had no ethical intent in 1 Rom: 26-28. "This categorization of homosexual behavior as "contrary to nature" was adopted with particular vehemence by Hellenistic Jewish writers, who tended to see a correspondence between the philosiphical appeal to "nature" and the clear teaching of the Law of Moses. "The Law recognizes no sexual connections," writes Josephus, "except for the natural (kata physin) union of man and wife....[rest deleted by me for brevity]." Elsewhere in the same work, Josephus deplores "intercourse with males" as para physin, and accuses the Greeks of inventing stories about homosexual behavior among the gods as "an excuse for the monstrous and unnatural (para physin) pleasures in which they themselves indulged. (Ap.2.273,275). Paul's contemporary Philo uses similar language in a long passage branding pederasty as "an unnatural pleasure (ten para physin hedonen)" (Spec.Leg. 3.37-42). .... [Hays goes on to cite another use by Philo of kata physin in a discussion of Sodom and Gommorha] There is a lot more I could quote from Hays on this point alone. He discusses other usages of physis in Paul's writings, the point about whether the idea of "natural law" existed in St. Paul's time, the general usage of 'para', and other points raised by Boswell, and effectively answers all of Boswell's points. Hays massively demonstrates that Boswell is simply wrong about St. Paul's usage of "para physin" in Romans 1. Hays does no such thing. He cannot "massively demonstrate" anything against a real, but passing part of Boswell's book. The histrionics of Boswell's detractor's, though, are interesting. He is equally effective in discussing Boswell's other points. By the way, an interesting point relevant to the issue of what Paul meant by "para physin" is also made by Hays: "The influence of Stoic thought was pervasive in first century moral philosophy, and its impact on Paul's conceptual categories is nowhere more apparent than in this passage (see Cranfield ... and the literature cited therein). Note, for instance, Rom 1:28, where Paul uses Stoic technical terminology: ta me kathakonta (RSV: "improper conduct")." Again Barr was milead by his enthusiams. "Kathekonta" means, more or less, "duties" [ie "officii" in Cicero's usage]. It was a common word by Paul's time, and no more meant that he subscribed to Stoic moral theory than our use of the word "duty" means we are Kantians. Hays' article does not claim that all of Boswell's arguments are wrong, and it should be remembered that Boswell's book was not primarily about Scriptural teaching about homosexuality. Hays limits his attack to the meaning of Romans 1. His article is notable for its clarity and cogency. I invite all interested in this subject to obtain a copy. (If your library does not have it you may be able to obtain it through interlibrary loan.) Boswell made little attempt during his lifetime to respond to the criticisms he faced. Other scholars did: Hays' article is discussed briefly, and dismissively, by L. William Countrman in his _Dirt, Sex and Greed_, an important reconsideration of early Christian ethics. Boswell was not always correct in his arguments: in fact he emphasizes that his book was the start of a discussion, not the end. As can be seen here, however, attacks on him tend to be subverted by agendas other than scholarly: Boswell discussed the texts he was supposed to have avoided, and was supported by authors used against him.