|
The History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality has been much debated. Some maintain early Christian Churches deplored same-sex relationships, while others maintain they accepted these relationships on the level of their heterosexual counterparts.
These disagreements concern, in some cases, the translations of certain terms, or the meaning and context of some passages.
Those who claim early Christianity denounced homosexuality generally identify themselves as conservative Christians, and likewise those who claim the opposite are described as liberal Christians. For a discussion on present stances of various Christian Churches on homosexuality see Christian views of homosexuality.
Conservative Christian Views
Conservative Christians believe there were denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the "Apostolic Constitutions". In response to the claim by liberals that such passages have been mistranslated due to certain obscure words whose meanings are unclear, conservatives point out that many passages use commonplace words whose meanings are well-known, such as the passage from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men", or St. Cyprian's denunciation of "men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men".
They are critical of the views that early Christians and Biblical figures had same-sex relationships. Conservatives claim that neither the Bible nor ancient Jewish law records such unions and that the term "son-in-law" at the heart of the Jonathan and David dispute could be used symbolically rather than literally.
Many who share the view that early Christians deplored homosexuality cite a translation of St. Aristides blaming the Greco-Roman heritage for what he believed to be corrupting early Christianity as illustrated in one of his quotes:
- "Some polluted themselves by lying with males. The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males. Yet they in turn impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians." St. Aristides ("Apology" c. 125 A.D.)
In response to liberals who claim that even the medieval Church tolerated homosexuality, conservatives cite documents such as the "Summa Theologica", the chief summary of doctrine in that era, which states the official position on sodomy in passages denouncing "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (ST: II:II: Q154: Art.11). Likewise, Christians of the time period, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins ("After this [bestiality] comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed"); and St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugenius III, related visions from God which contain quotes stating: "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight", and "a man who sins with another man as with a woman, sins bitterly against God and against the union with which God united male and female", and similar quotes in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms". Conservatives point out that such passages use commonplace terms which are neither obscure nor in dispute.
In response to liberals such as John Boswell [see below], who claim that the medieval Church did not condemn or prosecute people for sodomy until the 12th century, conservatives would point out that there are many doctrinal sources prior to that which do condemn sodomy, and Boswell's citation of harsher penalties from the 12th century onward reflects a general trend with regard to all ecclesiastic punishments, which gradually increased in severity over time for all offenses.
Liberal Christian Views
Liberal Christians claim that Biblical passages have been mistranslated or they do not refer to homosexuality and early Christians accepted homosexuality.
Liberal Christian scholars accept earlier versions of the Bible in Hebrew or Greek as definitive when discerning the will of God. They are concerned with copying errors, forgery, and of biases among the translators of later Bibles. They consider some verses such as those supporting slavery [1] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm) or the inferior treatment of women [2] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm) not being valid today, and against the will of God present in the context of the Bible. They differentiate among various sexual practices, treating rape, prostitution, temple sex rituals as immoral and those within committed relationships as positive regardless of sexual orientation. They view certain verses condemning homosexual rape not relevant to consensual homosexual relationships.
They believe that same-sex relationships were practiced by a number of early Christians, such as St. Augustine [3] (http://www.uno.edu/~asoble/pages/augbos.htm), as well as Biblical figures such as Ruth and Naomi [4] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm), Jonathan and David [5] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm), Daniel and Ashpenaz [6] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm).
One disputed example is located in Ruth 1:14: "Ruth clave unto her", where the Hebrew word translated as "clave" is identical to the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24.
Another example is of David and Jonathan at 1 Samuel 18:21, which the King James Version translates as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain", where "twain" means "two", in a reference to a proposed marriage between David and one of Saul’s two daughters. However the fact that the words "the one of" are shown in italics indicates that they are an interpolation by the translators. Thus a more literal translation would be "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", which some claim to be a reference to what they believe to have been David’s prior marriage with Saul’s son Jonathan. Many of those who claim the early church did not condemn homosexuality mention the fact that Jonathan was the son of King Saul in Israel and that after the relationship with David, King Saul then made David the next King instead of his own son.
Biblical historians that share the liberal view such as John Boswell indicate the rite of adelphopoiesis [7] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1107655439/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-7253373-3593564?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) may have been such a documented religiously-sanctioned same-sex union.
Two Christian martyrs, the Roman soldiers St. Serge and St. Bacchus are considered by some to be an example of an early Christian gay union on the basis of writings during the era and an early still surviving icon at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai depicting what some claim to be a wedding [8] (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html).
Boswell argues that Christianity only began to persecute gay men and women during the twelfth century a.d. He cites various translations and laws of the time period enacted to persecute minorities. In his essay “The Church and the Homosexual”[9] (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html) he attributes Christianity’s denunciations of homosexuality after the twelfth century a.d. to rising intolerance in Europe reflected in the laws enacted during the period to restrict womens’ rights, and expelling Jews and Muslims from Christian lands.
Those who defend the liberal translations note that some prominent Christian figures are believed to have had same-sex relationships. Many historians contend that King Richard I of England, who was heavily involved in the Third Crusade, had a relationship with King Philip II of France [10] (http://www.gayheroes.com/rich.htm). Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II [11] (http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/dec1999/col_stonewall.htm).
Writings of later time periods deploring homosexuality are discounted by many liberal Christians. They ascertain that such opinions were formed upon flawed Biblical translations caused by human error or personal bias of translators. With many claiming that wording in verses denouncing homosexuality were created after the twelfth century a.d. and were reflective of the society at the time not the word of God. And they believe since the earlier translations of the Bible are the basis of the Christian faith they should overrule any opposing opinions formed on later translations of the Bible.
References
See Also
| 
