Is there good reason why πυροῦσθαι (burned) in 1Cor7:9 and ἐξεκαύθησαν (inflamed) in Rom1:27 cannot be read as expressing the same idea?
I mean is there other evidence to suggest that ἐξεκαύθησαν (inflamed) is only used with a negative or deviant behavior, while πυροῦσθαι (burned) expresses a purer type of sexual desire? Or are both words simply used to expression a high level sexual desire (i.e. one that is burning or enflamed)?
They do express the same idea. εξεκαυθησαν doesn’t connote sexual “deviance” in itself: it’s just the context that does that. Looking at how the words are used outside the NT will confirm. (So you’d be better off with a dictionary like the “Middle Liddell” than with an exclusively NT one.)
As these two passages show, Paul is fanatically anti-gay, and only slightly less anti-sex.
And welcome to Textkit!
Same metaphorical use, two different words.
I’d suggest that Paul’s anti-homosexuality statements are easy to understand in the Romans context. He’s trying to build an argument that the gentiles ought to have known better, even without the Law, and is trying to point out practices that are contrary to nature. He has a clear rhetorical point to make by bringing up homosexuality/pederasty (the ancients didn’t always clearly distinguish between the two like we do today).
What surprises me is that we find no discussion whatsoever of forced sexual practices. Assuming that Christian congregations of the time contained a fair number of slaves – an idea that Pliny’s letter to Trajan seems to buttress – it surprises me that Paul would not have addressed it.
Thank you for your responses.
If I may ask the follow-up question, that may already be obvious…
I’ve read in several places that Paul is only condemning action that were a result of excessive sexual desire in Romans 1. However, if this were the case then why would Paul not condemn these young couples burning sexual desire? Instead, he only tells them to marry.
He has a clear rhetorical point to make by bringing up homosexuality/pederasty (the ancients didn’t always clearly distinguish between the two like we do today).
I think its entirely contestable that the “ancients” had any idea of “homosexuality” as we understand it. Sure there was same sex sex but thats a pretty narrow definition of “homosexuality”. Also it depends what you mean by “pederasty”. I think the Greeks were on whole at least in the classical period very much against the idea of men having sex with underage (whatever that means… probably pre-pubertal) free boys, not so sure about slaves because they weren’t too bothered about protecting their future rights because they wouldn’t become citizens. The diversity of male sexual relations in ancient greece is explored in James Davidson’s “The greeks and greek Love” . I know this wasn’t a wildly popular book when it was first published but I enjoyed reading it. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook by thomas Hubbard is helpful.
Discourses about sexuality are also to be read as discourses about power. Interesting on this is The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome by Catharine Edwards.
Quite so. Paul doesn’t approve of sexual desire in any size shape or form. It’s best repressed. But given that some men—not Paul of course—are incapable of repressing it (the idea that women might have sexual desire is too horrifying to even contemplate), it had better be directed towards women, just one woman at that, not on any account towards men, and sanctioned by marriage. Otherwise it’s a perversion. Adam and Eve and all that. And don’t dare mention masturbation!
@mwh, Let’s compare this to what Paul actually said:
ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀνήρ· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνή. μὴ αποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ μήτι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρὸν ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἧτε, ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν ὑμῶν.
Also, I believe that the only discussion of masturbation at all in the Bible is in Genesis, where it’s sort of incidental to the actual story.
Further, these comments seem to import Augustine’s doctrine of original sin backwards in time by a few centuries.
Joel, I’m not playing this game. Read the passages in question, which I don’t believe I’m misrepresenting.
I agree with Seneca that the “ancients” had probably no idea of “homosexuality” as we understand it; for them it was not so much a question of “identity” as a question of “penchant” (as in “he has a penchant for young boys” – the default sexual relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual, not being one between peers but between a man in the “active” part and significantly younger man or woman in the “passive” part). As for the Greeks in the classical period being against the idea of men having sex with young free boys, I agree as well – but with a strong emphasis on the word free. I don’t think they considered being the active part in homosexual relationships in any way unnatural or reprehensible per se, but being the passive part was considered degrading, and would compromise a free boy’s reputation permanently. So what was reprehensible was destroying the future of a free boy; if you did the same to a slave or a foreigner, no one cared.
There was a thread on Textkit where we explored the the possibility that “thou shalt not lie κοίτην γυναικός with another man” in Leviticus might actually might refer to submitting to another man, which would put the Old Testament policy more in line with the Greek one.
As far as masturbation is concerned, what surprises me is how little the ancients cared. My guess is that they didn’t consider it important, because masturbation if anything is an act without consequences. I think I’ve seen some references in Aristophanes, where it’s basically the thing slaves do because they can’t get anything better. The story of Onan in the Genesis doesn’t have anything to do with masturbation, if that’s what Joel means – it’s about coitus interruptus, and that’s contraception. (There’s one clear exception to this “uninteresting act without consequences” principle: I read about an Egyptian deity who created the world by masturbating. I don’t remember the story exactly; it can be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament.)
@mwh I think that both passages – and Paul himself – are seriously misrepresented by suggesting that their primary motivation is Paul’s prudishness. I would have thought that my quotation of the preceding paragraph would be enough to cause at least some retrenchment away from the sweeping generalizations about Paul’s motivations, but if not, I can be more detailed.
The Romans passage is by far the simpler one. Paul wanted to prove that God’s wrath was justified against Gentiles despite their not having been specifically told by God that what they were doing was wrong. He wants to prove that ‘They should have known better!’ He uses two arguments 1) they made idols when they should have realized that God can’t be represented by anything material, 2) they act contrary to nature, (ie., doing things that would surprise a farmer). There is no simple anti-sex message to be drawn from this passage.
The 1 Corinthians passage is much more complicated. Paul is replying to a question. We don’t know what that question was. There are many possibilities. Given the very strange discussion in 7:25-38, perhaps referring to some sort of celibate spiritual marriage practice, I tend to think that Paul is responding to a celibacy-related question. If so, then he is clearly trying to throw water on the fire here and say that normal marriage is just fine. Notice especially how balanced the discussion is about male and female sexual desire – the double-standard idea of male/female desire is directly contradicted here. But note Paul has a different view entirely though when it comes to female authority in the Church! This may have been what mwh was thinking of. Pseudo-Paul in the pastorals also comes down hard on any idea of male-female equality.
Paul is certainly no advocate of free love. But the ancient world is not the modern world – where there can be of course be no ill effects whatsoever from unconstrained sexual practice, pornography, etc. – free love was not an option to many classes of people in the ancient world. Any man practicing it would be leaving a trail of destruction behind him (single mothers and children likely to starve, disgraced wives, ruptured communities, etc.). A woman had no options towards free love outside of prostitution. It is hard to imagine that Paul breaking out into the chorus of “Imagine” would have had a very positive effect on the lives of early Christians.
Homosexuality is a separate and far more complex discussion. The hardest thing for me to grasp about Greek homosexuality is how common Greek homosexual imagery is. I think that Dover estimates that over half of sexualized vase images from classical Athens depict homosexual practice? This is simply a bizarre datapoint.
Most males tend to be aroused by either imagines including naked females, a far smaller group (2-3%) are aroused images including naked men. There is almost no-crossover between the groups and the population aroused by both sorts of is almost non-existent. We have very good studies on this – although people lie, electrodes don’t. In the lab, practicing bisexuals seem to be primarily aroused by one or the other set of images. Attempts to do the same sort of studies on women fail because about 30% of females show no physical response to either sort of image.
So a 50% homosexual pornographic vase rate needs an explanation. The best explanations, IMO, should be biological and not cultural. I could only make guesses, of course. I am certain, however, that the answer to this problem will never come out of the Classical Gender Studies industry.
Desire for pre-pubescent boys doesn’t seem to have been a thing in Classical Athens. It’s also a complete red herring. What you see is abundant discussion in classical texts about youths and desire for the unbearded. The same goes for vases. Like the Catholic Church of today, we’re largely talking about older men with the hots for teenage – not pre-pubescent – boys.
Back to Paul. Contrary to the above, the apostle would have simply assumed that homosexual practice was entirely a matter of free will. It’s easy enough to guess what a Jew – already pretty shocked by the comparative hyper-sexuality of the Greek and Roman world – would have thought of it. Paul’s view of homosexual practice isn’t far off from what the average man of his times would have thought. That doesn’t make him enlightened, but nor does it make him the colossal prude that the Christian world would later see in Marcion.
Lexical semantics requires a certain amount of tedious research. Both “words” are used for heat, igniting fires and as metaphors for passions of all kinds in the LXX. Used more often of anger than for sexual desire. To do the job right you need access to Louw & Nida so you can read the entire semantic domain 25 B Desire Strongly (25.12–25.32). You also need to search for each term in the LXX and see how it is used in context.
Louw & Nida
25.16 ἐκκαίομαι ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει: (an idiom, literally ‘to burn with intense desire’) to have a strong, intense desire for something — ‘to be inflamed with passion, to have a strong lust for, to be inflamed with lust.’ ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ‘(men) were inflamed with lust for one another’ Ro 1:27. In some languages the equivalent idiom is ‘to boil with desire,’ ‘to feel hot in the genitals,’ or ‘to prefer to die rather than to do.’25.31 πυρόομαιc: to experience intense sexual desire — ‘to burn with passion, to be sexually aroused.’ κρεῖττον γάρ ἐστιν γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι ‘for it is better to marry than to burn with sexual passion’ 1Cor 7:9.
25.229 πυρόομαιb: (a figurative extension of meaning of πυρόομαιa ‘to burn,’ 14.63) to be upset, with great concern and anxiety — ‘to be greatly worried, to be very distressed, to be worried and distressed.’ τίς σκανδαλίζεται, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι; ‘who is led into sin without me being worried and distressed?’ or ‘when someone is led into sin, I am worried and distressed’ 2Cor 11:29.
79.72 πυρόω: to cause to be hot, as of fire — ‘to heat, to make fiery hot.’ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρωμένης ‘his feet were like brass made fiery hot in a furnace’ or ‘… in a forge’ Re 1:15.
14.63 καίωa; καυσόομαι; καῦσις, εως f; πυρόομαιa; πύρωσιςa, εως f: the process of burning — ‘to burn, burning, to be on fire.’
LEH LXX Lexicon
ἐκκαίω+ V 5-10-8-19-14-56
Ex 22:5; Nm 11:1,3; Dt 29:19; 32:22
A: to burn out [τι] DnTh 3:19; to light up, to kindle [τι] Ex 22:6(5); to burn down (a city) [τι] Prv 29:8; to inflame (of anger) 2 Kgs 20:21; P: to be kindled Nm 11:1; (metaph.) Dt 29:19; ἐκκαίω ὀπίσω τινός to kindle a fire after sb, to pursue with fierce enmity (semit.) 1 Kgs 20(21):21;
*Jb 3:17 ἐξέκαυσαν they have burnt out corr.? ἐξέπαυσαν for MT חדלו cease ;
*Ps 117(118):12 ἐξεκαύθησαν -בערו? they burst into flame for MT דעכו they were extinguished
Cf. LEE, J. 1961, 235-236; MARGOLIS 1905=1972, 67πυρόω+ V 0-1-4-15-9-29
2 Sm 22:31; Is 1:25; Jer 9:6; Zech 13:9(bis) A: to burn [τι] 4 Mc 9:17; to make red hot, to cause to glow, to heat thoroughly [τι] 4 Mc 11:19; to try in the fire, to purge [τινα] Jdt 8:27; id. [τι] Ps 25(26):2 P: to be tried by fire (of metals) Jb 22:25; id. (metaph.) 2 Sm 22:31; to be inflamed, to be aflame 2 Mc 4:38 πυρώσαντες λίθους striking fire out of flints 2 Mc 10:3
—>NIDNTT; TWNT
(—>δια-, ἐκ-, προσ-)
DGE (Spanish)
ἐκκαίω
B intr. en v. med.-pas.1 encenderse, prender c. suj. abstr. “τὸ τοιοῦτον κακὸν ἐκκαόμενον” una vez prende tal perversión (en el estado), e.e. se instala Pl.R.556a, “τὸ γὰρ πῦρ ἐξεκαίετο” ref. a la pasión amorosa, Charito 1.1.8, c. giro prep. “καθ’ ἑκάστην οἰκίαν … ἐξεκαύθη τὸ μῖσος” Plb.15.30.1, “ἀφ’ οὗ ἐξεκαύθη πάντα τὰ κακὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς” Origenes Fr.in Ps.47.3
•c. suj. de pers. o ref. pers. excitarse, irritarse “ὅτι ἐξεκαύθη ἡ καρδία μου” LXX Ps.72.21, “προσέθετο ὀργὴ κυρίου ἐκκαῆναι” LXX 2Re.24.1, cf. 4Re.22.13, “ἐκκαιόμενος δὲ ὑπὸ μέθης καὶ πόθου” Parth.24.2, cf. Posidipp.29.9, Plu.2.455a, “ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐξεκᾴετο” Plu.TG 13, c. compl. prep. “οἱ ἄρσενες … ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει” Ep.Rom.1.27, “καὶ νέοι … ἐξεκάοντο πρὸς τὰ ἀκούσματα” Longus 3.13.3, “εἰς ἔρωτα” Alciphr.3.31.1, “εἰς θερμὴν ἔριν” Amph.Seleuc.161, “πρὸς μείζονα τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἐπιθυμίαν” Gr.Nyss.Ep.18.2, “ἐπὶ ἑκάτερα ἐξεκαίετο ἡ σπουδή” Soz.HE 1.15.10.
πυρόω
Lampe
kindle, set on fire; met.; 1. inflame with love, devotion, 2. test by fire, 3. purify by fire, 4. pass., be fiery
Craig Bartholomew, Philosophy and Old Testament prof, expert on hermeneutics, did a lecture series on Desire and Violence in 2012. You can find the lectures online various places. It is only tangentially related to the question.
On the subject of masturbation one has also to quote Diogenes Laertius on his namesake (locus 6.46):
Ἐπ’ ἀγορᾶς ποτε χειρουργῶν, εἴθε, ἔφη, καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν ἦν παρατρίψαντα μὴ πεινῆν.
This gives a whole new dimension on the vocation of surgeon. LS only gives sensu obsceno on the operative word.
Paul’s view of homosexual practice isn’t far off from what the average man of his times would have thought.
I think I prefer answers provided by the “Classical Gender Studies industry” than assertion based on no evidence at all, using unknown methodology.
The problem with Dover is he is obsessed with penetration as an expression of same sex desire. Things have moved on from his analysis as groundbreaking as it was in its day.
I thought your reductive biological model of sexuality rather binary and unimaginative. If people show no reaction to images their self-identification is somehow invalid because “although people lie, electrodes don’t”. Astonishing to read that in the western world.
If "Desire for pre-pubescent boys doesn’t seem to have been a thing in Classical Athens. It’s also a complete red herring. " then perhaps you would like to explain what Ps Aristotle Problems 4.26 is about? I mentioned pre-pubescent boys en passant because I thought you needed to unpack what you meant by “pederasty” I am sure I have read some prohibitions somewhere but they are not to hand and now lie buried in a long forgotten essay. If you are reconstructing your idea of ancient sexuality on the basis of reading plato I think you will have a very partial idealised history.
Also astonishing was your eliding scenes of same sex (desire? yes sometimes) with an altogether modern idea of pornography.
I agree with the first sentence of the second part of your post “Homosexuality is a separate and far more complex discussion”. Unfortunately the rest of your post fails to live up to that promising start. 
@Timothée – I think that the LSJ must mean that it is the one obscuring χειρουργῶν, because it can’t be obscure to anyone looking at that passage! (Should I have expected an ἄν in that passage though?)
@seneca – It may have been binary and unimaginative – though it was surprising to me – but it’s the answer that you get when you attach electrodes to people’s sensu obscoeno to measure blood flow responses to visual stimulation.
There is no problem with Dover’s list of classical vases, which is what I cited him for. His data was exhaustive. I have no comment on his interpretations or his detractors’ attacks. (I do know his funny Oxford nickname and also about the fellow that he more or less admits to murdering in his memoir.) His detractors’ time might be better spent attacking his book on word order.
4.26 (hardly Aristotelian, and quite possibly very late) is simply the old chestnut about child abuse turning you gay. I shouldn’t have to tell people that the person who wrote this was operating on imagination, not observation.
Yes, outside the NT is the only place you can go for help with εξεκαυθησαν. I found about 70 samples of πυροω εκκαιω in the LXX. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Most frequently used as metaphor of divine anger. In other contexts the fire is a result of divine anger. In some contexts it depicts this burning as a purifying process.
NOTE, the NRSV is not a translation of the LXX. I don’t have NETS handy for copying.
Num. 11:1 Καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς γογγύζων πονηρὰ ἔναντι κυρίου, καὶ ἤκουσεν κύριος καὶ ἐθυμώθη ὀργῇ, καὶ ἐξεκαύθη ἐν αὐτοῖς πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου καὶ κατέφαγεν μέρος τι τῆς παρεμβολῆς.
Num. 11:1 (NRSV) Now when the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes, the LORD heard it and his anger was kindled. Then the fire of the LORD burned against them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.
Num. 11:3 καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου Ἐμπυρισμός, ὅτι ἐξεκαύθη ἐν αὐτοῖς πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου.
Num. 11:3 (NRSV) So that place was called Taberah, because the fire of the LORD burned against them.
Deut. 29:19 οὐ μὴ θελήσῃ ὁ θεὸς εὐιλατεῦσαι αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ τότε ἐκκαυθήσεται ὀργὴ κυρίου καὶ ὁ ζῆλος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ,
Deut. 29:20 (NRSV) the LORD will be unwilling to pardon them, for the LORD’S anger and passion will smoke against them.
2Sam. 24:1 Καὶ προσέθετο ὀργὴ κυρίου ἐκκαῆναι ἐν Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐπέσεισεν τὸν Δαυιδ ἐν αὐτοῖς λέγων Βάδιζε ἀρίθμησον τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ τὸν Ιουδα.
2Sam. 24:1 (NRSV) Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.”
Is. 1:25 καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ πυρώσω σε εἰς καθαρόν, τοὺς δὲ ἀπειθοῦντας ἀπολέσω καὶ ἀφελῶ πάντας ἀνόμους ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ πάντας ὑπερηφάνους ταπεινώσω.
Is. 1:25 (NRSV) I will turn my hand against you;
I will smelt away your dross as with lye
and remove all your alloy.
Ezek. 21:3 καὶ ἐρεῖς τῷ δρυμῷ Ναγεβ Ἄκουε λόγον κυρίου Τάδε λέγει κύριος κύριος Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀνάπτω ἐν σοὶ πῦρ, καὶ καταφάγεται ἐν σοὶ πᾶν ξύλον χλωρὸν καὶ πᾶν ξύλον ξηρόν, οὐ σβεσθήσεται ἡ φλὸξ ἡ ἐξαφθεῖσα, καὶ κατακαυθήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ πᾶν πρόσωπον ἀπὸ ἀπηλιώτου ἕως βορρᾶ· 4 καὶ ἐπιγνώσονται πᾶσα σὰρξ ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος ἐξέκαυσα αὐτό, καὶ οὐ σβεσθήσεται. 5 καὶ εἶπα Μηδαμῶς, κύριε κύριε· αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν πρός με Οὐχὶ παραβολή ἐστιν λεγομένη αὕτη;
Ezek. 20:47 (NRSV) say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. 48 All flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it; it shall not be quenched.
Jer. 51:6 καὶ ἔσταξεν ἡ ὀργή μου καὶ ὁ θυμός μου καὶ ἐξεκαύθη ἐν πόλεσιν Ιουδα καὶ ἔξωθεν Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν εἰς ἐρήμωσιν καὶ εἰς ἄβατον ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη.
Jer. 44:6 (NRSV) So my wrath and my anger were poured out and kindled in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they became a waste and a desolation, as they still are today.
Zech. 13:9 καὶ διάξω τὸ τρίτον διὰ πυρὸς καὶ πυρώσω αὐτούς, ὡς πυροῦται τὸ ἀργύριον, καὶ δοκιμῶ αὐτούς, ὡς δοκιμάζεται τὸ χρυσίον· αὐτὸς ἐπικαλέσεται τὸ ὄνομά μου, κἀγὼ ἐπακούσομαι αὐτῷ καὶ ἐρῶ Λαός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐρεῖ Κύριος ὁ θεός μου
Zech. 13:9 (NRSV) And I will put this third into the fire,
refine them as one refines silver,
and test them as gold is tested.
They will call on my name,
and I will answer them.
I will say, “They are my people”;
and they will say, “The LORD is our God.”
Is. 1:25 καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ πυρώσω σε εἰς καθαρόν, τοὺς δὲ ἀπειθοῦντας ἀπολέσω καὶ ἀφελῶ πάντας ἀνόμους ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ πάντας ὑπερηφάνους ταπεινώσω.
Is. 1:25 (NRSV) I will turn my hand against you;
I will smelt away your dross as with lye
and remove all your alloy.
Thanks for confirming, Stirling. But looking outside the LXX would be even more useful for illustrating Paul’s usage.
I didn’t say a word about his motivations. I was merely encapsulating his views on sex as expressed in these parts of the letters. He was clearly much more “prudish” (your word) than most Romans of the time and most definitely than most Corinthians! (which is quite understandable, given his upbringing), but that’s beside the point. You do well to attempt contextualization, and I’d actually agree with much of what you say.
I wouldn’t turn to Paul of Tarsus for instruction on how to conduct my sex life, or any aspect of my life, and I find it appalling that anyone does these two thousand years on. But that too is beside the point. It’s an interesting distinction he draws between speaking for himself and speaking for God.