What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Testament and Homosexuality
Just what is a proper use of the Bible, especially the New Testament, in Christian debates about acceptance of homosexuals? In addition to bringing clarity and honesty to issues of the relevance of the Bible, this work brings a little more light and a little less heat to the discussion, a little more acceptance of all persons on the "other side," and maybe even an awareness that in Christ there is really no "other side" at all.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
March 18, 2013
Recently I've been editing a dissertation on eschatological and ecotheological themes in the Pauline corpus. The dissertation has nothing to do with homosexuality, but it has reminded me of this Scroggsian book because both works treat Paul's words with a fascinating concern for the context of the time and for how Paul might be seen as an interrogator of other literature, biblical and otherwise.
I jumped into this book, the one with the nonsensically futuristic chess board cover, with no sense of where the writer would land on the matter of homosexuality, but I'll admit that I was hoping--I was hoping that when I cracked into the arguments and the interpretations I would find a centrist perspective that neither portrayed Paul as a closeted advocate for gay rights nor as a hateful agent of Westboro Baptist. I was hoping these things because I couldn't imagine either perspective passing the historical sniff test. I couldn't imagine that when Paul said "Dudes, don't have sex with other dudes," he simply forgot the "unless you're married" clause or that Paul was subtly making up for all of Jesus's missed opportunities to preach about homosexuality by rarely mentioning it himself and in the company of other things, slyly hiding his emphasis so that we would somehow know we were to sweep the land, campaigning and picketing against the rights of gays. Instead, I wanted something convincing. But beyond that, I was hoping to find a word of love for my gay Christian friends, some evidence that would point toward the possibility of an interpretive path where monogamous homosexuality was not simply a sin.
I'm not sure that a close reading of Paul leads to such a path, but THE NEW TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY makes it clear that what some of us take for obvious ammunition against, say, gay marriage is nothing of the sort for Paul. Scroggs demonstrates that when biblical writers like Paul speak of homosexuality, they are most likely speaking of pederasty, of older men "loving" young boys, whereas when we speak of gay marriage, we are presumably speaking of committed, monogamous relationships based on consensual love.
Perhaps Paul would still have railed against such relationships or perhaps he would have interpreted the incarnation and resurrection and the thread of hope and love in the Bible as consistent with such marriages. Perhaps the Holy Spirit directed Paul to write those words in that way and the differing contexts of today and yesterday don't matter, or perhaps the Holy Spirit is talking to us now, whispering of Christ the radical, the one who loved sinners and turned away from legalistic traditions. I'm not sure we can know such things with certainty. But I do think that Scroggs's book, an old one that I picked at random from a friend's give-away pile, gives a helpful primer on some things that we might know if we care to look.
I jumped into this book, the one with the nonsensically futuristic chess board cover, with no sense of where the writer would land on the matter of homosexuality, but I'll admit that I was hoping--I was hoping that when I cracked into the arguments and the interpretations I would find a centrist perspective that neither portrayed Paul as a closeted advocate for gay rights nor as a hateful agent of Westboro Baptist. I was hoping these things because I couldn't imagine either perspective passing the historical sniff test. I couldn't imagine that when Paul said "Dudes, don't have sex with other dudes," he simply forgot the "unless you're married" clause or that Paul was subtly making up for all of Jesus's missed opportunities to preach about homosexuality by rarely mentioning it himself and in the company of other things, slyly hiding his emphasis so that we would somehow know we were to sweep the land, campaigning and picketing against the rights of gays. Instead, I wanted something convincing. But beyond that, I was hoping to find a word of love for my gay Christian friends, some evidence that would point toward the possibility of an interpretive path where monogamous homosexuality was not simply a sin.
I'm not sure that a close reading of Paul leads to such a path, but THE NEW TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY makes it clear that what some of us take for obvious ammunition against, say, gay marriage is nothing of the sort for Paul. Scroggs demonstrates that when biblical writers like Paul speak of homosexuality, they are most likely speaking of pederasty, of older men "loving" young boys, whereas when we speak of gay marriage, we are presumably speaking of committed, monogamous relationships based on consensual love.
Perhaps Paul would still have railed against such relationships or perhaps he would have interpreted the incarnation and resurrection and the thread of hope and love in the Bible as consistent with such marriages. Perhaps the Holy Spirit directed Paul to write those words in that way and the differing contexts of today and yesterday don't matter, or perhaps the Holy Spirit is talking to us now, whispering of Christ the radical, the one who loved sinners and turned away from legalistic traditions. I'm not sure we can know such things with certainty. But I do think that Scroggs's book, an old one that I picked at random from a friend's give-away pile, gives a helpful primer on some things that we might know if we care to look.
October 9, 2020
This little book by Robin Scroggs is full of information, a great deal of lascivious information. The ancient world was filled with wickedness, including sexual wickedness. Scroggs identifies pederasty as the ancient homosexual "model," and tries to put as much distance between that model and the modern homosexual practice as he can. In order to do so, he makes a mockery of Paul. According to Scroggs, Paul knows nothing about which he writes. Really. I guess the modern scholar, depending upon a fraction of extant texts and artifacts (and a host of modern assumptions) knows more about the sexual practices of Paul's contemporaries than did Paul himself. Such are the activist-oriented academic conceits of Mr. Scroggs.
Reading this work will acquaint the reader with many ancient perversions, but it is not a good guide to what the NT actually says about those perversions. I got it for $0.50... quite a bargain! It would have been worth paying 10 times that price, but that's about it.
Reading this work will acquaint the reader with many ancient perversions, but it is not a good guide to what the NT actually says about those perversions. I got it for $0.50... quite a bargain! It would have been worth paying 10 times that price, but that's about it.
September 9, 2017
This is a significant and fascinating work for anyone who is genuinely interested in what the Bible says - or doesn't say - about homosexuality. It's a scholarly work that examines the relevant (and oft-quoted, usually mistakenly) texts in light of their historical context and underlying original language. Observe that the book was written in 1983, which would have made it a rather bold undertaking within the milieu of Christian thought at that time, though even today some will see it as such given its conclusions. Throughout this review I'll use the terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality", typically scorned today, because: 1) they're what the author uses, and 2) the modern preferred term "gay" isn't sufficient to capture the Biblical nuances involved in translating words and exegeting passages as the author is required to do.
By all accounts, Scroggs was a serious Bible scholar whom many would describe as conservative, though the better description might be "impartial": he seems to be firmly rooted in the camp of "let the evidence lead where it may" without presuppositions as to the destination.
Scroggs opens his book with this statement, which I'm quoting in full because of its importance:
"The main purpose of this book will be to describe the practices of and attitudes toward homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. This is the case because Christian statements about homosexuality in the New Testament are responses to that cultural scene. Until we know what the biblical authors were against, we cannot begin to reflect upon the relevance of those writings for contemporary issues." [italics added]
Scroggs is simply making the point that we can't necessarily apply statements from an earlier time (in this case a much earlier one ) to current matters that may bear little or no relationship to the specific matters addressed in those statements.
While Scroggs focuses on relevant passages in the New Testament, he doesn't ignore those in the Old Testament, principally Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. At the risk of not doing justice to what is actually a rather in-depth analysis, I'd summarize his conclusions on the OT writings as follows.
For the two verses from Leviticus he questions whether the behavior was proscribed for the "moral" reasons we would cite today, or rather because it stifled procreation (as with Onan's "spilling of his seed" in Genesis 38:8-10). He notes that there literally is no Hebrew word for homosexuality, so that in these passages it's specific behavior that's at issue, and that the Hebrew wording is awkward to translate and thus to interpret. On the passage in Deuteronomy, he exegetes it as dealing with cultic prostitution rather than homosexuality per se (again, there being no Hebrew word for the latter) . Scroggs further observes that none of these passages make any mention of female homosexual behavior, which would be odd if a general prohibition against homosexual relationships was intended. As to Sodom and Gomorrah, he recognizes that modern scholarship across the board leans toward ascribing the offense of those cities to be largely other than sexual (if sexual at all). Finally, he emphasizes that Levitical passages prescribing the death penalty for homosexual acts are among a litany of other behaviors invoking the same penalty, which prescriptions are largely ignored by Christians today, typically on the basis that the New Testament supersedes the Old in such matters.
That said, the bulk of the book is concerned with examining culture leading up to and at the time of the NT writers, principally Paul but also the author of 1 Timothy (scholars disagree on its authorship).
Scroggs' analysis relies on a bevy of sources including contemporary secular writings, especially those of the Greek and Roman historians, playwrights and philosophers, along with the art of the era in its depiction of sexual acts and relationships. These sources reveal a culture focused, insofar as homosexual behavior is concerned, almost entirely on what we today call pederasty, i.e., sexual relationships between men and boys. Pederastic practice is examined at length, with reproduction of contemporaneous arguments for and against by secular commentators, whether directly in essay form or indirectly in dramatic, poetic or pictorial form. It's critical to note that neither advocates or critics of pederasty deny its cultural pervasiveness at the time. Advocates typically argued for a "pure" form of pederasty that might be described as a kind of mentorship, while critics tended to deny the reliability of such a form (seeing such description as a mere fig leaf) and to focus on the power imbalance (as we so often do today in criticizing certain relationships, whether boss/worker, male/female, etc.) involved.
From secular commentary Scroggs moves to Jewish views, contrasting those of Hellenistic Judaism (which relied heavily on the writings of Philo and Josephus) and Palestinian Judaism (resting on discussions of rabbinical authors). As an aside, typical lay readers may be surprised to learn that the Bible "translations" used by these two groups were different: the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament for Hellenistic Jews versus the Targums - Aramaic translations often involving paraphrases -for Palestinian Jews. This isn't without significance, as the translations diverge at times, if only because of the different languages involved (though religious, cultural and political views certainly weren't without effect). Space doesn't permit this review to step through Scroggs' detailed examination of the Septuagint and the Targums, but it's fair to say he concludes they viewed homosexuality as sinful, or at least unnatural, but with the caveat that pederasty was the act most commonly in view, along with homosexual prostitution. That is, the prohibitions in the law as taught at the time didn't address the modern notion of a committed homosexual relationship.
Scroggs NT focus is on three passages: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Again, space doesn't allow me to do justice to the careful scrutiny Scroggs applies to these verses; suffice to say it is extensive, intelligent and - to my mind - evenhanded. Consequently, I'll deal with only one of the three passages, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Proper exegesis of this passages as it applies to homosexuality requires first understanding the use of two Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The first literally means "soft", and is frequently used to designate just that in Koine Greek. However, it can also be used to suggest other meanings, in particular "effeminate". Young's Literal Translation (YLT) renders it exactly so (as a noun rather than an adjective), as does the KJV and ASV; the NRSV has "male prostitutes". Interestingly, the 1984 NIV has "male prostitutes" while the 2011 version uses "adulterers". One can easily see the translation dilemma here: from a word whose literal meaning is "soft" we're given "sodomites", "male prostitutes", and "adulterers". One might well ask, "which is it?" And none means homosexuality in the sense we would today use "gay".
The second word is described by scholar Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians as "obscure"; Scroggs goes a step further by saying that he is unable to find any pre-Pauline use of the word in secular Greek writings. One hypothesis is that Paul himself coined the term as a combination of Greek words for man ("arsen") and bed ("koitai"); the latter can have either noun or verb usage depending on the form. In any event, the absence of any common usage presents difficulties in translation. YLT and the NRSV both have the unhelpful "sodomites"; the disparity among other common translations is striking. For example, the KJV shows "abusers of themselves with mankind", the ASV has the somewhat similar "abusers of themselves with men", the 1984 NIV "homosexual offenders", the 2011 NIV "men who have sex with men" All this from a word that appears should be literally rendered as "manbed".
Naturally, Scroggs recognizes these difficulties, concluding after exhaustive consideration that both words refer to pederastic behavior (the first meaning the effeminate "boy-lover" in such relationships, and the second meaning the older "power" participant).
Second, Scroggs views Paul's use of the terms as being primarily part of a rhetorical device: that is, a series of lists comprising in each case "a club" with which to hit the Corinthians as part of his condemnation of their behavior and views as reported to him. There are three such lists which appear successively in 5:10, 5:11, and finally 6:9-10. Each list includes all the offenses of its predecessor while adding others: malakoi and armenokoitai don't make the scene until the third list, which expands the original from four to twelve. Scroggs' point is that the passage doesn't represent an effort by Paul to condemn homosexual relationships as we see them today, but rather to include pederasty in a growing list of sins with which to hammer the Corinthians in making his point that they've strayed from what they were originally taught. Understand that here, as in the the passages in Romans and 1 Timothy, Scroggs doesn't say that Paul didn't view (or wouldn't have viewed, since they seem to have been unknown in his day based on the contemporary literature) homosexual relationships as sinful, but rather than this passage cannot be cited in support of such a view.
Scroggs is similarly comprehensive in his approach to the passages in Romans and 1 Timothy, and ultimately draws the same conclusion, which he states as:
"...the basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved."
A surprising conclusion perhaps for one of Scroggs' background, but certainly not one reached without laborious research and, it appears to this reader, without predisposition..
Scroggs himself seems surprised, as he adds:
"It may seem surprising to read an author who has spent his entire adult life studying the Bible argue that the Scriptures are irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today. I regard this to be true about the specific passages we have analyzed. Yet the Bible with its great thematics of our faith must still be heard and will still provide guidance. The search for the basic truths of the Bible along with serious grappling with psychological and sociological resources, should now become the primary aid in helping us reach decisions."
Regardless of whether one agrees with Scroggs' result, he is likely to find this book edifying and thought-provoking, and without an axe to grind.
By all accounts, Scroggs was a serious Bible scholar whom many would describe as conservative, though the better description might be "impartial": he seems to be firmly rooted in the camp of "let the evidence lead where it may" without presuppositions as to the destination.
Scroggs opens his book with this statement, which I'm quoting in full because of its importance:
"The main purpose of this book will be to describe the practices of and attitudes toward homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. This is the case because Christian statements about homosexuality in the New Testament are responses to that cultural scene. Until we know what the biblical authors were against, we cannot begin to reflect upon the relevance of those writings for contemporary issues." [italics added]
Scroggs is simply making the point that we can't necessarily apply statements from an earlier time (in this case a much earlier one ) to current matters that may bear little or no relationship to the specific matters addressed in those statements.
While Scroggs focuses on relevant passages in the New Testament, he doesn't ignore those in the Old Testament, principally Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. At the risk of not doing justice to what is actually a rather in-depth analysis, I'd summarize his conclusions on the OT writings as follows.
For the two verses from Leviticus he questions whether the behavior was proscribed for the "moral" reasons we would cite today, or rather because it stifled procreation (as with Onan's "spilling of his seed" in Genesis 38:8-10). He notes that there literally is no Hebrew word for homosexuality, so that in these passages it's specific behavior that's at issue, and that the Hebrew wording is awkward to translate and thus to interpret. On the passage in Deuteronomy, he exegetes it as dealing with cultic prostitution rather than homosexuality per se (again, there being no Hebrew word for the latter) . Scroggs further observes that none of these passages make any mention of female homosexual behavior, which would be odd if a general prohibition against homosexual relationships was intended. As to Sodom and Gomorrah, he recognizes that modern scholarship across the board leans toward ascribing the offense of those cities to be largely other than sexual (if sexual at all). Finally, he emphasizes that Levitical passages prescribing the death penalty for homosexual acts are among a litany of other behaviors invoking the same penalty, which prescriptions are largely ignored by Christians today, typically on the basis that the New Testament supersedes the Old in such matters.
That said, the bulk of the book is concerned with examining culture leading up to and at the time of the NT writers, principally Paul but also the author of 1 Timothy (scholars disagree on its authorship).
Scroggs' analysis relies on a bevy of sources including contemporary secular writings, especially those of the Greek and Roman historians, playwrights and philosophers, along with the art of the era in its depiction of sexual acts and relationships. These sources reveal a culture focused, insofar as homosexual behavior is concerned, almost entirely on what we today call pederasty, i.e., sexual relationships between men and boys. Pederastic practice is examined at length, with reproduction of contemporaneous arguments for and against by secular commentators, whether directly in essay form or indirectly in dramatic, poetic or pictorial form. It's critical to note that neither advocates or critics of pederasty deny its cultural pervasiveness at the time. Advocates typically argued for a "pure" form of pederasty that might be described as a kind of mentorship, while critics tended to deny the reliability of such a form (seeing such description as a mere fig leaf) and to focus on the power imbalance (as we so often do today in criticizing certain relationships, whether boss/worker, male/female, etc.) involved.
From secular commentary Scroggs moves to Jewish views, contrasting those of Hellenistic Judaism (which relied heavily on the writings of Philo and Josephus) and Palestinian Judaism (resting on discussions of rabbinical authors). As an aside, typical lay readers may be surprised to learn that the Bible "translations" used by these two groups were different: the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament for Hellenistic Jews versus the Targums - Aramaic translations often involving paraphrases -for Palestinian Jews. This isn't without significance, as the translations diverge at times, if only because of the different languages involved (though religious, cultural and political views certainly weren't without effect). Space doesn't permit this review to step through Scroggs' detailed examination of the Septuagint and the Targums, but it's fair to say he concludes they viewed homosexuality as sinful, or at least unnatural, but with the caveat that pederasty was the act most commonly in view, along with homosexual prostitution. That is, the prohibitions in the law as taught at the time didn't address the modern notion of a committed homosexual relationship.
Scroggs NT focus is on three passages: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Again, space doesn't allow me to do justice to the careful scrutiny Scroggs applies to these verses; suffice to say it is extensive, intelligent and - to my mind - evenhanded. Consequently, I'll deal with only one of the three passages, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Proper exegesis of this passages as it applies to homosexuality requires first understanding the use of two Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The first literally means "soft", and is frequently used to designate just that in Koine Greek. However, it can also be used to suggest other meanings, in particular "effeminate". Young's Literal Translation (YLT) renders it exactly so (as a noun rather than an adjective), as does the KJV and ASV; the NRSV has "male prostitutes". Interestingly, the 1984 NIV has "male prostitutes" while the 2011 version uses "adulterers". One can easily see the translation dilemma here: from a word whose literal meaning is "soft" we're given "sodomites", "male prostitutes", and "adulterers". One might well ask, "which is it?" And none means homosexuality in the sense we would today use "gay".
The second word is described by scholar Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians as "obscure"; Scroggs goes a step further by saying that he is unable to find any pre-Pauline use of the word in secular Greek writings. One hypothesis is that Paul himself coined the term as a combination of Greek words for man ("arsen") and bed ("koitai"); the latter can have either noun or verb usage depending on the form. In any event, the absence of any common usage presents difficulties in translation. YLT and the NRSV both have the unhelpful "sodomites"; the disparity among other common translations is striking. For example, the KJV shows "abusers of themselves with mankind", the ASV has the somewhat similar "abusers of themselves with men", the 1984 NIV "homosexual offenders", the 2011 NIV "men who have sex with men" All this from a word that appears should be literally rendered as "manbed".
Naturally, Scroggs recognizes these difficulties, concluding after exhaustive consideration that both words refer to pederastic behavior (the first meaning the effeminate "boy-lover" in such relationships, and the second meaning the older "power" participant).
Second, Scroggs views Paul's use of the terms as being primarily part of a rhetorical device: that is, a series of lists comprising in each case "a club" with which to hit the Corinthians as part of his condemnation of their behavior and views as reported to him. There are three such lists which appear successively in 5:10, 5:11, and finally 6:9-10. Each list includes all the offenses of its predecessor while adding others: malakoi and armenokoitai don't make the scene until the third list, which expands the original from four to twelve. Scroggs' point is that the passage doesn't represent an effort by Paul to condemn homosexual relationships as we see them today, but rather to include pederasty in a growing list of sins with which to hammer the Corinthians in making his point that they've strayed from what they were originally taught. Understand that here, as in the the passages in Romans and 1 Timothy, Scroggs doesn't say that Paul didn't view (or wouldn't have viewed, since they seem to have been unknown in his day based on the contemporary literature) homosexual relationships as sinful, but rather than this passage cannot be cited in support of such a view.
Scroggs is similarly comprehensive in his approach to the passages in Romans and 1 Timothy, and ultimately draws the same conclusion, which he states as:
"...the basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved."
A surprising conclusion perhaps for one of Scroggs' background, but certainly not one reached without laborious research and, it appears to this reader, without predisposition..
Scroggs himself seems surprised, as he adds:
"It may seem surprising to read an author who has spent his entire adult life studying the Bible argue that the Scriptures are irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today. I regard this to be true about the specific passages we have analyzed. Yet the Bible with its great thematics of our faith must still be heard and will still provide guidance. The search for the basic truths of the Bible along with serious grappling with psychological and sociological resources, should now become the primary aid in helping us reach decisions."
Regardless of whether one agrees with Scroggs' result, he is likely to find this book edifying and thought-provoking, and without an axe to grind.
July 3, 2024
A NEW TESTAMENT PROFESSOR LOOKS AND THE CULTURE AS WELL AS THE TEXTS
At the time this book was published in 1983, Robin Scroggs was a professor of Professor of Biblical Theology at the Union Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Preface, “I decided that somebody needed somehow to provide resources that would give both clarity and honesty: clarity about the real issues with which the Bible dealt, and honesty about how the Bible could or could not appropriately inform the current debate… I am not a homosexual. Nor do I write this book as an advocate either for or against the ecclesiastical rights of homosexuals. I confess to a confusion about the merits of psychological arguments concerning homosexual inclinations, a confusion I know I share with many people. I just do not know whether homosexuality is or can be normal or whether it can be as fulfilling to human person as heterosexuality. At the same time I confess equally that I see no way of reading the Christian gospel except that it is the one which totally accepts in love all persons, regardless of inadequacies or moral failings. I have seen too many tragic rejections of homosexual persons in the name of Christian righteousness or even love. I thus offer these pages in the hope that… it may bring as well a little more light and a little less hear to the discussion, a little more acceptance of all persons on the ‘other side,’ and maybe even an awareness that in Christ there is really no ‘other side’ at all.” (Pg. v-vi)
He continues, “Just what is a proper use of the Bible, especially the New Testament, in these discussions? If this is the basic question of the book, the reader may experience some surprise and, perhaps, frustration in learning that most of the pages which follow are concerned with nonbiblical materials…. Why do I not simply explore what the biblical texts themselves say? There have, in fact, been a number of recent studies of the biblical texts. Most of them, however… do not explore the wider societal context… they do not raise the question: What are the authors against? What are they opposing when they oppose homosexuality? Yet this is, in fact, the very first question that should be asked and answered!” (Pg. vi)
He adds, “In the final chapter, I give my own judgments about the proper use of the Bible. I need, perhaps, to forewarn the reader that my ultimate conclusions may seem negative. This is not, however, due to any disrespect I have for the biblical message. Indeed, as a scholar of the New Testament, I have devoted my entire professional life to see a better understanding of that message… No, my seemingly negative conclusions are [because]… continued invocation of the biblical injunctions in the current debate violates, in my judgment, the integrity of the biblical authors themselves. Thus if I take an advocacy role in this book, it is for a proper use of Scripture which does not violate its integrity.” (Pg. vii-viii)
He suggests, “From our perspective the practices of pederasty in the ancient world do raise serious moral questions, questions of denigration and dehumanization of the boys… Yet I do not sense any homophobia in the texts under discussion, although there is plenty of MISOGYNY. The great debate was between men who disagreed with each other but who were rational enough not to try to legislate the other out of existence.” (Pg. 62)
He observes, “The first immediate impression of the Hebrew Bible, in comparison with the Greco-Roman literature we have bene studying, is its almost complete silence, perhaps indifference, about homosexuality. Nothing is said about female homosexuality at all, and the assembled texts of all possible references to male homosexuality make short reading indeed. The reason for this indifference is usually seen to lie in the absence of homosexuality within ancient Israel, a judgment that is probably correct.” (Pg. 70)
He summarizes, “These positions within Palestinian Judaism (along with Hellenistic Judaism) were influential on New Testament views and, in part, on its language. I move to a conclusion which can be tentatively formulated in this way: The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background.” (Pg. 84)
He states, “the word ‘arsenokoites’ has always seemed more straightforward to express a homosexual act… Nevertheless, the term is strange. As far as I have been able to determine, its earliest extant occurrence is in 1 Cor 6:10. Apparently, then, it has no recoverable history prior to Paul’s use of it. This opens the way to at least two different directions of interpretation, or reinterpretation. Since there is no series of already established usages which determine what the word HAS to mean in 1 Corinthians, it is conceivable that later interpretations of the word are incorrect, especially so since the word does not appear after 1 Corinthians with any frequency.” (Pg. 106-107)
He notes, “[I] draw the conclusion that the vice list in 1 Timothy is not condemnatory of homosexuality in general, not ever pederasty in general, but that specific form of pederasty which consisted of the enslaving of boys or youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males. Perhaps the effeminate call-boy is also included in the condemnation, but I see no way of making a judgment on the matter.” (Pg. 120-121)
He points out, “The number of Old Testament laws the church has discarded is immense. We commonly---and anachronistically---think we make distinctions only between the moral laws and the cultic and purity laws. Not only is this a false dichotomy to apply to Israelite law, not only is it not a distinction the New Testament makes in any formal fashion, it also is not our own principle of selection, at least not our only one… The conclusion, thus, that Christian assessment about homosexuality and God’s will should depend primarily upon New Testament rather than Old Testament texts seems justified.” (Pg. 124-125)
He acknowledges, “It may seem surprising to read an author who has spent his entire adult life studying the Bible argue that the Scriptures are irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today. I regard this to be true about the specific passages we have analyzed. Yet the Bible with its great thematics of our faith must still be heard and will still provide guidance. The search for the basic truths of the Bible, along with a serious grappling with psychological and sociological resources, should now become the primary aid in helping us reach decisions.” (Pg. 129)
This is a frank and honest examination of not only the New Testament material, but also sources outside the Bible. It will be of great interest to anyone studying the Bible and the issues relating to homosexuality.
At the time this book was published in 1983, Robin Scroggs was a professor of Professor of Biblical Theology at the Union Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Preface, “I decided that somebody needed somehow to provide resources that would give both clarity and honesty: clarity about the real issues with which the Bible dealt, and honesty about how the Bible could or could not appropriately inform the current debate… I am not a homosexual. Nor do I write this book as an advocate either for or against the ecclesiastical rights of homosexuals. I confess to a confusion about the merits of psychological arguments concerning homosexual inclinations, a confusion I know I share with many people. I just do not know whether homosexuality is or can be normal or whether it can be as fulfilling to human person as heterosexuality. At the same time I confess equally that I see no way of reading the Christian gospel except that it is the one which totally accepts in love all persons, regardless of inadequacies or moral failings. I have seen too many tragic rejections of homosexual persons in the name of Christian righteousness or even love. I thus offer these pages in the hope that… it may bring as well a little more light and a little less hear to the discussion, a little more acceptance of all persons on the ‘other side,’ and maybe even an awareness that in Christ there is really no ‘other side’ at all.” (Pg. v-vi)
He continues, “Just what is a proper use of the Bible, especially the New Testament, in these discussions? If this is the basic question of the book, the reader may experience some surprise and, perhaps, frustration in learning that most of the pages which follow are concerned with nonbiblical materials…. Why do I not simply explore what the biblical texts themselves say? There have, in fact, been a number of recent studies of the biblical texts. Most of them, however… do not explore the wider societal context… they do not raise the question: What are the authors against? What are they opposing when they oppose homosexuality? Yet this is, in fact, the very first question that should be asked and answered!” (Pg. vi)
He adds, “In the final chapter, I give my own judgments about the proper use of the Bible. I need, perhaps, to forewarn the reader that my ultimate conclusions may seem negative. This is not, however, due to any disrespect I have for the biblical message. Indeed, as a scholar of the New Testament, I have devoted my entire professional life to see a better understanding of that message… No, my seemingly negative conclusions are [because]… continued invocation of the biblical injunctions in the current debate violates, in my judgment, the integrity of the biblical authors themselves. Thus if I take an advocacy role in this book, it is for a proper use of Scripture which does not violate its integrity.” (Pg. vii-viii)
He suggests, “From our perspective the practices of pederasty in the ancient world do raise serious moral questions, questions of denigration and dehumanization of the boys… Yet I do not sense any homophobia in the texts under discussion, although there is plenty of MISOGYNY. The great debate was between men who disagreed with each other but who were rational enough not to try to legislate the other out of existence.” (Pg. 62)
He observes, “The first immediate impression of the Hebrew Bible, in comparison with the Greco-Roman literature we have bene studying, is its almost complete silence, perhaps indifference, about homosexuality. Nothing is said about female homosexuality at all, and the assembled texts of all possible references to male homosexuality make short reading indeed. The reason for this indifference is usually seen to lie in the absence of homosexuality within ancient Israel, a judgment that is probably correct.” (Pg. 70)
He summarizes, “These positions within Palestinian Judaism (along with Hellenistic Judaism) were influential on New Testament views and, in part, on its language. I move to a conclusion which can be tentatively formulated in this way: The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background.” (Pg. 84)
He states, “the word ‘arsenokoites’ has always seemed more straightforward to express a homosexual act… Nevertheless, the term is strange. As far as I have been able to determine, its earliest extant occurrence is in 1 Cor 6:10. Apparently, then, it has no recoverable history prior to Paul’s use of it. This opens the way to at least two different directions of interpretation, or reinterpretation. Since there is no series of already established usages which determine what the word HAS to mean in 1 Corinthians, it is conceivable that later interpretations of the word are incorrect, especially so since the word does not appear after 1 Corinthians with any frequency.” (Pg. 106-107)
He notes, “[I] draw the conclusion that the vice list in 1 Timothy is not condemnatory of homosexuality in general, not ever pederasty in general, but that specific form of pederasty which consisted of the enslaving of boys or youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males. Perhaps the effeminate call-boy is also included in the condemnation, but I see no way of making a judgment on the matter.” (Pg. 120-121)
He points out, “The number of Old Testament laws the church has discarded is immense. We commonly---and anachronistically---think we make distinctions only between the moral laws and the cultic and purity laws. Not only is this a false dichotomy to apply to Israelite law, not only is it not a distinction the New Testament makes in any formal fashion, it also is not our own principle of selection, at least not our only one… The conclusion, thus, that Christian assessment about homosexuality and God’s will should depend primarily upon New Testament rather than Old Testament texts seems justified.” (Pg. 124-125)
He acknowledges, “It may seem surprising to read an author who has spent his entire adult life studying the Bible argue that the Scriptures are irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today. I regard this to be true about the specific passages we have analyzed. Yet the Bible with its great thematics of our faith must still be heard and will still provide guidance. The search for the basic truths of the Bible, along with a serious grappling with psychological and sociological resources, should now become the primary aid in helping us reach decisions.” (Pg. 129)
This is a frank and honest examination of not only the New Testament material, but also sources outside the Bible. It will be of great interest to anyone studying the Bible and the issues relating to homosexuality.
August 24, 2015
There are two main points to Scroggs's argument that we cannot take what the New Testament says about "homosexuality" seriously. The first is that Paul's vice lists in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and 1 Timothy are stock lists taken from the Hellenistic/Jewish tradition so cannot be taken too seriously. Paul does not rank anything in the lists, nor is Paul concerned specifically with anything in particular in the lists; Paul uses them merely to make "theological" points. The second is that the words used in the lists referring to "homosexuality" are really referring to pederasty (as practiced in the Greco-Roman world) and not at all to our culturally different forms of homosexuality. Scroggs thinks that Paul may still be against "homosexuality" as it is practiced today, but we cannot know for sure. My question with this whole line of reasoning is its relation to the inspiration of scripture. What about the other "vices" in the lists? It seems that the same argument could be made to have the other things on the lists null and void for our "different" culture.
September 25, 2015
Wow. The basis for Scroggs' reasoning of homosexuality as being okay is that the homosexual culture in New Testament times is vastly different from today's homosexual culture. But if you are going to take that road, our ENTIRE culture is "different" from New Testament culture and thus there now seems to be license to throw out all moral/ethical admonitions.
(Maybe Scroggs shouldn't throw out hermeneutics entirely in favor of only exegesis.)
(Maybe Scroggs shouldn't throw out hermeneutics entirely in favor of only exegesis.)
January 31, 2024
Like many churches, our church is attempting to understand the issue of homosexuality and what our stance should be. I have been studying the issue in great depth, reading books and material from all different sides of the issue.
Robin Scroggs' The New Testament and Homosexuality examines in great detail the passages that mention homosexuality in both the New and Old Testaments. He goes into TREMENDOUS depth regarding the cultural context and historical culture of the times when the passages were written. This is deep stuff here, and it is not an easy read.
His conclusions are many, but mainly he substantiates his conclusion that, by-and-large, the passages were aimed at a specific type of homosexuality, mainly pederasty (the Greco-Roman practice of older men becoming tutors and lovers of young boys).
It is frequently cited and recognized as a ground-breaking work on the subject matter.
Robin Scroggs' The New Testament and Homosexuality examines in great detail the passages that mention homosexuality in both the New and Old Testaments. He goes into TREMENDOUS depth regarding the cultural context and historical culture of the times when the passages were written. This is deep stuff here, and it is not an easy read.
His conclusions are many, but mainly he substantiates his conclusion that, by-and-large, the passages were aimed at a specific type of homosexuality, mainly pederasty (the Greco-Roman practice of older men becoming tutors and lovers of young boys).
It is frequently cited and recognized as a ground-breaking work on the subject matter.
December 8, 2022
In this book, a theology school professor goes through the sections of the New Testament where Paul speaks negatively about homosexuality. Through a series of chapters, he explores what "homosexuality" meant to Paul, so as to more clearly define what exactly he was condemning. I found the book to be very detailed and well-cited. I am not well educated enough to know the counter arguments to the ones the author makes, but I feel like he endeavored to find facts that prove the opposites of his conclusions, at least to a small extent, but was unable to find credible ones. This reads like a textbook on a very specific subject, but was helpful to me.
November 19, 2013
Published in 1983, I'm not sure how current the scholarship is. But it is an interesting review of the sexual context of the societies known to the writers of the Old and New Testament. Conclusions: "Thus what the New Testament was against was the image of homosexuality as pederasty and primarily here its more sordid and dehumanizing dimensions." (126) and "The question remains: would Paul have said the same thing about the current model of the caring adult relationship of mutuality? I have no way of knowing. Let no one think that I am trying to turn Paul into an advocate of contemporary homosexuality. He might still be opposed. The point is that there is know way of knowing. (128)
June 13, 2008
A very informative book that really goes into depth on the subject of homosexuality in the first century. It sheds light on the few Bible passages that mention it in the New Testament. A bit historically laborious, but if you are up to some heavy reading, it is worth the effort.
August 14, 2013
Very antiquated, but helpful.
September 21, 2016
This has been a pivotal book in my life and I got the chance to meet the author and thank him for writing it!
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews