Marti Nissenen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: a Historical Perspective - Book Review

Translated by Kirsi Stjerna. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998. Pp. vii + 208. Cloth, $24.00.

This book was originally published in Finland, where homosexuality is legal. The state church (Evangelical Lutheran) acknowledges homosexual orientation but disapproves of its practice. Although the book was rewritten for its English translation, the attitude of the Finnish Church is shared by other churches.

The author notes that the idea of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality as sexual preferences is approximately one hundred years old. In contrast, the ancients envisaged specific gender roles rather than sexual orientation, and same-sex interaction was evaluated within the setting of gender. The Bible as an ancient text is expected, perhaps unreasonably, to answer modern questions about human sexuality. Current constructs of homosexuality are set forth from the perspectives of psychiatry, psychology, biology, and sociology (chapter 1). Homosexuality is defined as "related to the same sex," homoeroticism as erotic-sexual encounters with the same sex, and homosociabilty as indicating the preference of men for male company.

The main portion of the book investigates the biblical references, Mesopotamian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman sources. Mesopotamian sources (chapter 2) include the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Middle Assyrian Laws, and the male cult personnel of Inanna/Ishtar. The friendship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu was more likely homosocial than homoerotic. The Middle Assyrian Laws show that a mutual sexual relationship between two equal, freeborn men was inconceivable. Sexual activity was defined as active or passive: the male role was active, the female passive. Males, routinely slaves or youths, who were penetrated were like women. Thus, the penetrated freeborn male lost masculinity and status. That two equal males might engage in sexual activity to penetration was recognized, but as reprehensible and punishable. The cult of Inanna/Ishtar included and tolerated males who were either sexually passive by choice, cross-dressers, lacking complete sexual development, or castrated. In the First Testament (chapter 3) familiar references from Leviticus, the story of Sodom, and the friendship of David and Jonathan also provide evidence that sex between free men was unacceptable. In Israel it also transgressed the "holiness" of God. The incident at Sodom was a display of power (cf. fig. 3 depicting a victorious Greek about to rape a Persian soldier) and a violation of hospitality rather than homosexuality. The relationship of David and Jonathan is presented, like that of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, as homosociability.

The chapter (4) on Classical Antiquity covers familiar material. Nissinen understands that the concept of pederasty was limited. In Athens it was the way by which a boy, under the tutelage of an older lover, would mature into a man, becoming a husband and father and in turn the lover/mentor of a young boy. Again the notion of passivity in a freeborn male was repellent. In Rome homoeroticism had no moral value. Its objects were slaves and male prostitutes whose passivity would not compromise their honor. The classical critique of homoeroticism, especially male passivity, was that it was "against nature." Judaism (chapter 5) considers a few texts from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, and Rabbinic sources. Josephus and Philo share the Hellenistic notion that homoeroticism is against nature. In the chapter (6) on the Second Testament, Nissenen demonstrates how Paul used the argument "against nature" in Romans. Paul's condemnation of homoerotic relationships is, however, to be understood within the context of the argument of the letter for justification by faith. Paul lists sins traditionally associated with Gentiles, arouses his readers' moral indignation, and then indicates that they are no better than the Gentiles. This is crucial, for while Paul disapproves of such relations, he mentions them obliquely and not as the centerpiece of a discussion of same-sex relations. Jesus offers no comment on homoeroticism, but is presented as associating with those marginalized by society.

Chapter 7 surveys homoeroticism in the biblical world and today. Although the references to same-sex eroticism are few, they are negative. Their is no allusion to homosexual partnerships based on mutual love as they are currently understood. Thus these texts can make only a limited contribution to modern discussions of homosexuality. A short appendix discusses homosexuality as a theological problem and sets it in the wider context of the whole law depending on the commandment of love.

This work, with its exhaustive bibliography, is the distillation of wide and painstaking research. It gives the general reader a reliable, sympathetic, and honest account of how the Bible and its world perceived this issue, and it makes an essential contribution to the ongoing debate.

John Barclay Burns
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

COPYRIGHT 2000 Biblical Theology Bulletin, Inc
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group