Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective
Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective
复制标题
圣经世界中的同性恋：历史视角
DOI：
10.2307/3268599
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Martti Nissinen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martti Nissinen
《圣经世界中的同性恋：一个历史的视角》，作者：Martti Nissinen。Kirsi Stjerna翻译。明尼阿波利斯：堡垒，1998年。页7 + 208。24.00美元。Martti Nissinen这本关于同性情色的书简洁易懂，从地理上和时间上来说都是非常全球化的。还有什么地方可以方便地研究美索不达米亚、希伯来圣经、古典古代、犹太教和新约中关于同性恋的主要文本？尽管有这个副标题，但这种兴趣并不纯粹是历史的。解释学的关注出现在对同性恋和性别的现代解释的介绍中，并在结论中考虑到将古代和现代对同性恋的理解联系起来是多么有问题。因此，对古代文本的讨论面临着一个问题，即如何在不同的文化和不同的时代之间进行比较。十张插图，一个关于“创造、自然和性别认同”的附录，以及大量的注释，完成了这本书。赫尔辛基大学OT专业的读者Nissinen恰当地建立了精确的术语，并警告不要将现代和古代问题等同起来。同性恋指的是同性恋倾向，而同性恋指的是同性之间的性行为。试图将性解释为天生的（本质主义者）或社会关系的产物（建构主义者）的讨论通常以僵局告终，但并未减少其对作者和读者的重要性。这本书坚持认为性别是一种社会建构。因此，性伴侣的性别不可避免地以社会角色为前提。关于美索不达米亚的一章包含了对埃及神话的简短参考，其中赛斯对霍恩的性虐待表明了他的统治地位。更贴切的是吉尔伽美什史诗中两个男性之间的爱情（尽管吉尔伽美什和恩奇杜不仅仅是人类）。但尼西宁将这种关系解释为对一个包含女性的世界的拒绝，而不是对男性禁欲主义的拒绝。对中亚述法律的讨论表明，男性同性恋行为与通奸相似，受到监管，尽管通过暗示性别角色的改变，穿透一个平等的社会，使他感到羞耻。另一方面，亚述的预兆表明，男性插入另一个获得支配地位。与此相关的还有IStar的性别模糊（男性作为晨星，女性作为晚星）和一个名为assinus的邪教官员，他扮演了模糊的性别角色，可能包括阉割。然而，这些角色更多的是无性恋，而不是同性恋。在对希伯来圣经文本的讨论中出现了一个小小说。尼西宁将文本置于其社会历史背景中（《神圣法典》是后流放时期的），并采用了宗教的比较历史。他强调，缺乏证据来解释为什么神圣法典禁止男性之间的性行为，但也表明，邪教的纯洁是由古老的（过时的？）禁忌所驱动的，这与维持社区身份的策略有关。所多玛和利未人的妻子（士师记19）得到了现在司空见惯的解释，即好客被侵犯了。此外，性侵犯在这些故事中体现了统治。尼西宁将“看到裸体”作为性交的委婉说法，将哈姆的诅咒解释为同性恋行为的结果，这一行为逆转了诺亚的性角色。考虑到大卫和乔纳森的平等（双方都不是主动的，相对于被动的另一方），他们的关系被评价为同性恋社会而不是同性恋关系。最长的一章是关于古典的。希腊和罗马的男性同性恋是截然不同的，值得单独讨论。在希腊文化中，鸡奸（青春期男孩和成年男子之间的不平等关系，不能自动等同于现代同性恋）并不挑战社会规范，在青少年的发展中被视为正常现象。众所周知，柏拉图评价鸡奸优于婚姻。…
Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, by Martti Nissinen. Translated by Kirsi Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Pp. vii + 208. $24.00. For its brevity and accessibility, Martti Nissinen's book on same-sex eroticism is remarkably global-geographically and chronologically. Where else can one find a convenient study of primary texts on homoeroticism from Mesopotamia, the Hebrew Bible, classical antiquity, Judaism, and the NT? The subtitle notwithstanding, the interest is not purely historical. Hermeneutical concerns emerge in an introduction on modern explanations of homosexuality and gender, and in a conclusion that considers how problematic it is to correlate ancient and modern understandings of homoeroticism. Thus, the discussion of ancient texts stands under the question of how it is possible to make comparisons between different cultures and different ages. Ten illustrative plates, an appendix on "Creation, Nature, and Gender Identity," and extensive annotation complete the book. Nissinen, Reader in OT at the University of Helsinki, appropriately establishes precise terminology and cautions against equating modern and ancient issues. Homosexuality designates homosexual orientation, and homoerotic designates sexual interaction between members of the same sex. A discussion of attempts to explain sexuality as inborn (essentialist) or as a product of social relations (constructionist) ends conventionally in a stalemate, without diminishing its importance for both author and reader. The book maintains that gender is a social construct. Thus, the gender of sexual partners inevitably presupposes social roles. The chapter on Mesopotamia includes a brief reference to Egyptian mythology, in which Seth's sexual abuse of Horns demonstrates his dominance. More germane is the love between two males in the Epic of Gilgamesh (though Gilgamesh and Enkidu are more than human). But Nissinen interprets this relationship as a rejection of a world that includes females for masculine asceticism. A discussion of Middle Assyrian Laws indicates that male homoeroticism is regulated on analogy with adultery, though penetrating a social equal shames him by implying altered gender roles. On the other hand, Assyrian omens indicate that a male who penetrates another gains dominance. Pertinent also is IStar's gender ambiguity (masculine as a morning star, feminine as an evening star) and a cultic functionary known as assinnus, who played ambiguous gender roles, perhaps including castration. These roles were, however, more asexual than homoerotic. Little novel appears in the discussion of texts from the Hebrew Bible. Nissinen locates the texts in their socio-historical setting (the Holiness Code is postexilic) and employs comparative history of religions. He emphasizes the dearth of evidence for explaining why the Holiness Code prohibits sexual acts between males but also suggests that cultic purity was driven by ancient (antiquated?) taboo linked with a strategy to maintain communal identity. Sodom and the Levite's wife (Judg 19) receive the now commonplace explanations that hospitality is violated. Additionally, sexual infractions in these stories manifest domination. Taking "seeing nakedness" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, Nissinen interprets Ham's curse as a result of a homoerotic act that reverses Noah's sexual role. Given the equality of David and Jonathan (neither is active with respect to a passive other), their relationship is evaluated as homosocial rather than homoerotic. The longest chapter is devoted to classical antiquity. Greek and Roman male homoeroticism are distinct enough to merit separate discussions. In Greek culture pederasty (an unequal relationship between a pubescent boy and a mature man who cannot automatically be equated with modem homosexuals) did not challenge social norms and was viewed as normal in the development of youths. As is well known, Plato evaluated pederasty as superior to marriage. …