Sexuality in the Ancient Mediterranean World

I think that before I continue with the “Biblical Misinterpretations” series on the blog, an understanding of sexuality in the time and place that the books of the Bible were being written is needed. This will help to eliminate any confusion for future entries. Since the Bible did not develop in a vacuum, understanding the times will help us understand the text.
The first, and possibly the most important, thing to remember is that the word ‘homosexual’ did not exist linguistically prior to the late 19th century. The reason is not because homosexuality is a recent development but rather that an understanding of human sexuality as we now have did not come about until Karl Heinrich. Biblical writers were writing in a time when there was no such thing as ‘sexuality’ but rather were writing in a time when sexual activity was a means to an end.
Sex was not regarded as a unitive act in a committed partnership between two consenting adults. As Biblical scholar Mary Tolbert points out: “The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world...is that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission.” Therefore, sex between two men was a means to show social, political, and/or military dominance of one male over another male. In sex during this era, there was a penetrator (dominant) and penetrated(submissive), hence, sexuality was only understood in terms of masculinity.
All men (female sexuality didn’t truly exist) in the ancient Mediterranean were ‘heterosexuals’ who choose to perform ‘homosexual’ acts, according to societal sensibilities. There were 3 major reasons for which one male would have sex with another male: pederasty, temple sex/prostitution, and rape. The Bible makes mention to each of these types of same-sex acts, however, it is sometimes harder for modern readers to spot and no context or explanation for them is given; the writers might not have felt the need to do this because their contemporary readers would have understood what the author was saying.
The first form of a ‘homosexual’ act in which an ancient male could have partaken usually didn’t even include a sexual act and was only found in the upper social class. Especially in ancient Greece, the practice of an older man courting a younger teen was common place. Even though their relationship may appear to us as being sexual in nature, penetration was rare. The Bible has no mention of this type of same-sex relationship, however.
Temple sex/prostitution, the next form of male-to-male sexual act, receives the most amount of Biblical condemnation. Much of the Torah is early Israel working out its unique identity; trying to separate itself from surrounding civilizations, invaders, and foreign rulers. One thing prevalent in Greek and Roman worship was temple sex. It is often said that prostitution is the oldest profession and in many ways, temple sex is what drove a profession where one person payed another person for sex. Depending on which cult you followed, ritualistic sex may have been one of the ways in which you connected with a particular deity. Early Jewish people, wishing to create a distinctive identity, would have intentionally shunned a particular practice (temple sex) or adapted a distinct mark (circumcision) to set themselves apart. Since the God of the Jewish people is different from the gods of the Greco-Roman world, than logically speaking, the ways in which the Jewish people worshiped God had to be different as well.
The third reason one male would have sexual contact with another male was rape. It was common practice in the Mediterranean for village men to gang rape a foreign man traveling through their city as a reminder of his subordination and as a means to humiliate him. Conquering armies would often rape the prisoners of a defeated army as a way to prove masculinity and superiority. Especially for Romans, it became a way of feminizing the enemy. As with any rape, the sole purpose of this male-to-male sexual contact was power and control. Sexual orientation, as we understand it and as psychology explains, played no role in this. The only purpose was to instill fear and humiliation. Naturally, as the Israelites were called by God to love, compassion, and mercy to the stranger, the practice of male-to-male rape was strictly forbidden by the Holiness Codes and by cultural norms of Judaism. For a man to rape another man was sinful in the eyes of the Lord (the same did not hold true for the male rape of females, however).
I hope that this will help to serve as a background for the following installments of “Biblical Misinterpretations.” I will be citing this in coming posts so hopefully you will find this useful. Take care and God bless!