Abstract
In 2005 the Australian Research Council granted William Loader a subvention for a five-year research project on ‘Attitudes towards sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era’. The investment has paid off: this is the fifth monograph by the same author to appear as a result of the project. A first volume was published already in 2007 and dealt with early Enochic literature, the Aramaic Levi document and the Book of Jubilees. It was followed two years later by a book on sexuality in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another two years later Loader published two more monographs, one on the evidence from the Pseudepigrapha (in addition to those writings discussed in the first volume) and one on Philo, Josephus, and the Testament literature. Loader works with what he calls a ‘broad sense’ of interpretation of sexuality: ‘matters pertaining to sexuality rather than in the more defined sense which we find in discussion of sexual orientation and sexual theory’ (p. 1; a quote from the Introduction that is reprinted in each of the volumes).
In the present volume Loader discusses the evidence of the New Testament writings. The work is divided into eight chapters. The first two chapters – views from philosophers and every-day life on sexuality in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman world contemporary to the period in which the NT writings were produced – could of course also have been included in one or another of the earlier volumes; but they are certainly not inappropriate here as they not only contribute to situating the NT evidence in a broader perspective, but also contain material for comparison and in some cases even for drawing lines of common influence. These background chapters are followed by chapters on sexuality in the gospel tradition (actually, on adultery and forms of sexual wrongdoing: the tantalizingly difficult πορνϵία; the Baptist accusing Herod of incest?), on the evidence in the letters of Paul (with a systematic commentary on 1 Cor 7), on divorce (the relevant sayings in the gospels), on same-sex intercourse (Rom 1:24, 26-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; and 1 Tim 1:9-10), on the relation between men and women in early Christian communities (in the Jesus tradition, in Paul – 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:33-36; Gal 3:26-28; and after him – Col 3:9-11 and 1 Tim), and finally, on celibacy (the famous eunuch saying in the gospels; the call for radical discipleship; Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 7; and the call to virginity). Taken together these six chapters cover pretty much the whole of the evidence from the NT (quite remarkably, there is not one reference to Acts– the Ephesus incident and Artemis?).
As is well known, this evidence includes some of the more difficult and complex passages that can be found among the sayings of Jesus and in the NT in general. One such passage is the antithesis in Matt 5:27-28, which Loader first studies on its own and has it then followed by an analysis of the scandalon saying in 5:29-30 and its doublet and parallel in Matt 18:6-9 and Mark 9:43-48. Loader proposes to read the antithesis not only with an eye on the one that follows, but also on the one on wrath and anger that precedes in 5:21-22a and is expanded into vv. 22b-26. This is certainly defendable, and has a not inconsiderable effect on the interpretation of the phrase πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν, which Loader renders as ‘with a view to lusting after her’. The immediate context is that of a warning against committing adultery and the focus is not on the result of the action, but on its purpose and intention, as is the case also in the preceding antithesis (p. 118). ‘In that sense the text does not say anything one way or another about sexual desire in itself, but only about sexual desire in the context of potential adultery’ (p. 118). Matthew’s Jesus is intent on warning against forms of uncontrolled reactions in meeting with married women, not on criticising each and every form of looking for sexual contact. It is a rather more liberal reading of the text than can be found in many other essays on this passage.
The concern for warning about illicit sexual behaviour is rather more indirect in the antithesis that follows. If Mark 9:42 (par. Matt 18:6-7) can be read as a warning against pederasty, it is less certain that this should be the case also in 9:43-48 (Matt 18:8-9) – so Loader (p. 123), who instead suggests taking these verses, like the preceding ones, as referring to pederasty or to sexual immorality in general (pp. 125-126). The detail of the ‘right’ hand in 5:29-30 does not allow for taking it as an image for the penis (as is possible in the doublet in Matt 18) and should most probably be taken literally. It might refer to masturbation, though in antiquity this as a rule is rather connected with using the left hand, which leads Loader to settle for the somewhat less specific ‘sexual misconduct’ (p. 128). Some readers may find this conclusion perhaps a bit too general, just as they also may feel a bit uncomfortable with the suggestion that the doublet verses in chapter 5 would stem from ‘tradition independent of Mark’ (p. 127). Evidence for the latter is not so easy to find, whereas the version in 5:29-30 does contain a few elements that are found also in the parallel in Mark (Gehenna!). So maybe the latter was at the origin of Matthew’s second use of the saying, as he also sounds through in the doublet in 5:31-32 (here ‘intruding’ into a Q passage). The decision to transfer the saying to this earlier context and use it once more is of course Matthew’s, as is the rearrangement of its order, leaving out the reference to the foot and putting the phrase on the eye first so as to smoothen the transition from the previous saying to this one. But if Mark is somewhere at the horizon in 5:29-30, it would also mean that Matthew by transferring the saying into this context has invited the reader, willingly or not, to bring in line adulterous behaviour and outright acts of pederasty. Moreover, by doing so, Matthew introduces a very harsh warning and punishment for an act that in itself is at best only the first step towards adultery. Loader is probably right in arguing that this is not an indicator that Matthew was radically against any form of sexual behaviour or desire; nor can it be explained by referring to an awareness on the part of the evangelist of any sort of urgent eschatological expectation that would call and allow for such drastic action (p. 135). But it may also not be enough to say, with Loader, that the verses (whether taken literally or metaphorically) ‘underline the radical seriousness of what 5:28 demands, reinforcing it with the threat of judgement’ (ibid.). That, they certainly do, but there must also be more to it, for adultery, just as pederasty, however they are defined, were not tolerated in Jewish (and Greco-Roman) society and were sanctioned by law. Are Matthew and Mark here calling for a sort of self-punishment that would be acceptable within the system? After all, in some manuscripts of John (and Luke) a woman is presented as only narrowly to have escaped being stoned to death for precisely that– adultery.
This one case presented in some detail does of course not do justice to the wealth of observations that can be found in this book and should be followed by others, but it may suffice to give the reader a taste of the way Loader proceeds in his analysis and it offers a nice example of how even such ‘over-studied’ passages as these two antitheses in Matthew can still bear another insightful reading. But as said, more is to be found here, waiting to be uncovered by its readers.