naturalem usum conditionis in non naturalem masculos et ...

[jtownsle]

Sed et in priore epistula naturalem usum conditionis in
non naturalem masculos et feminas inter se demutasse affirmans
ex retributione erroris in uicem poenae, utique naturalibus patrocinatur. (Tertullianis, De Corona, early 200s?)

Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. (Thelwell, 1885)
*****************************************************

First, I want to thank you all last month for helping me with a translation from Ambrosiaster!! I was impressed with the insight here. The translation played a part in an article that was recently accepted for publication. Most of it was Greek-related, but Ambrosiaster was a nice supporting paragraph.

Here is a related Latin issue, also regarding Romans 1, this one from Tertullian. What I'm really concerned about is the highlighted portion above. "Demutasse" doesn't show up in Perseus, but I assume it's from demuto.

Rather than the translation above from Thelwall, what about: "the males and females changed the conditionis?? from a natural use into unnatural."

Two specific questions I have:
1) Thelwall (and Brooten, later) translate "conditionis" simply as "creature", but does that seem like a good use of the word? It's feminine here, so could it be referring back to the woman?
2) Thelwall (and Brooten) translate "inter" as "among themselves." Is this as ambiguous in the Latin as it is in English? Traditionally Romans 1.26b-27 (Tertullian's original reference) has been interpreted that the males changed nature with males and the females changed nature with females, however there's been evidence amassing that Rom 1.26b actually means the males and the females were having "unnatural heterosexual sex" with each other--meaning, sex that couldn't produce children. So is there a way to tease out a more precise meaning from this?

Thanks again!

[Nooj]

I'm going to leave your other questions for the big guns.

"Demutasse" doesn't show up in Perseus, but I assume it's from demuto.

It's the syncopated form of demutavisse. It happens all the time in Latin.

Two specific questions I have:
1) Thelwall (and Brooten, later) translate "conditionis" simply as "creature", but does that seem like a good use of the word? It's feminine here, so could it be referring back to the woman?

Lewis and Short says that it's something made or a work. Which could well apply to the human being (which is created by God).

[Cinefactus]

I won't claim to be one of the big guns, and I don't have my dictionary with me, but I would have thought that conditionis means relationship. Having said that, the Vulgate uses this word (once as far as I can see) to mean creation. Either way would make more sense

that they had changed the natural use of creation into an unnatural one or
that they had changed the natural use of a relationship into an unnatural one

(translating usum here as use, as this seems to be how the Vulgate uses it in Romans)

I can see your point about inter se, although in the Vulgate it doesn't appear ambiguous at all.

propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam similiter autem et masculi relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes

I am scratching my head though on how to translate the last part, utique naturalibus patrocinatur

[Cinefactus]

I was thinking about my reply, and had decided that probably creation was the best translation. Bede also uses the word with this meaning.

I checked in Niermeyer, however, and the first meaning given there, is mutual relations, so I guess either is possible!

[Imber Ranae]

Here's a more literal translation:

Sed et in priore epistula naturalem usum conditionis in
non naturalem masculos et feminas inter se demutasse affirmans
ex retributione erroris in uicem poenae, utique naturalibus patrocinatur.

But also earlier in the epistle, when he affirms that males and females warped the natural use of creation into an unnatural one amongst themselves as a mutual punishment in retribution for their error, he at all events upholds the natural uses [of creation].

The word conditio can properly only mean "creation", "creature", etc., which is certainly what it means here, and is itself very rare outside of ecclesiastical Latin. It's condicio which has all the meanings that are more familiar to us, including "relationship", but later in the medieval period these two words were frequently confused because medial t and c before the letter i started to merge into a single sound. Many of the less reliable manuscripts of classical texts handed down to us likewise contain this same error, propagated by scribes ignorant of the original distinction. For this reason the English word "condition" is actually a derivative of classical Latin condicio rather than the rare conditio, something which still causes confusion.


ETA: By the bye, I should greatly like to see this "amassing evidence" that Romans 1.26-27 is not a whole-hearted condemnation of homosexuality. Sounds to me like some good souls, full of liberal kindness and tolerance, yet entirely ignorant of Greek, have taken it upon themselves to introduce a politically correct interpretation of Paul's words into the religious consciousness of the masses, an utterly pointless endeavour if ever there was one.

Any attempt to reconcile with our modern sensibilities the plainly homophobic sentiments which so pervade the bible and the whole societal milieu of first century Judea, while somewhat endearing for its naïveté, is going to be a fool's errand. Sometimes a bad egg is just a bad egg.

[jtownsle]

By the bye, I should greatly like to see this "amassing evidence"

Most of the discussion has been in the academic literature. Other than activists it hasn't really hit mainstream sources yet. It started in the 80s with Boswell's classic, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality." If you keep up on this body of literature, you know Boswell's first book on this subject had it's problems, mainly poor Greek philology in the Appendices. But his primary ideas have held up--that the early church seemed not to care about same-sex sex, but around the 400s when the culture started to turn conservative, the church similarly fell into line, although the condemnation still wasn't consistent or severe until after the start of the 2nd millennium.

One of Boswell's deficits wasn't necessarily his own, but a lack of scholarship on ancient sexualities. There was of course the sporadic works like Foucault's History of Sexuality, and Dover's Greek Sexuality, but those didn't come out until the late 70s, so the field was just starting (btw--that's my field, sociology of sexuality). Since then a lot of really nice "classics" have been produced--in addition to the above--like Nissinen's Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, Brooten's Love Between Women, William's Roman Homosexuality, and Cantarella's Bisexuality in the Ancient World, among several others (I can provide a more exhaustive bibliography for those interested in the topic).

At any rate, the key finding that seems to be consistent is that it is anachronistic to talk about greek, roman or jewish conceptions of "homosexuality" as we think of them today, since sex acts were divided by class and status, not necessarily by gender. So after Boswell's initial attack on the traditionalist assumptions, the next big crack in the facade was the deconstruction of the idea that we can translate post-industrial ideas about gay/straight to the ancient world. Building on this, applying it directly to your question about Romans 1, is the modern presumption that Rom 1.26b must be talking about lesbians, since Rom 1.27 is clearly talking about gays. However, if the concept of "homosexuality" as a class of people didn't exist in the 1st century, it would be anachronistic for Paul to have lumped together female homogenitality and male homogenitality. What is becoming the accepted interpretation is that Rom 1.26b is either about unnatural heterosexual sex (sex that can't produce children), or sexually aggressive women with sexually passive men--an unnatural disruption of normal social relationships (since women were "naturally" passive, and vice versa).

My own work, the article that was recently accepted for publication, isn't particularly novel as such, but it puts a firm set of data on the assertions that Paul in Rom 1.26-27 is attacking goddess cults, not "homosexuality." Many authors have made the claim, but nobody has actually produced a seminal paper demonstrating the background and subsequent confirmations, although several papers and commentaries since the 60s have concluded that the entire section of Rom 1.18-32 is specifically about idolatry, but they just weren't quite sure how v26-27 fit. My work attempts to fit the pieces together. The goddess cults, Cybele for example, started gaining political and social power in the 1st century, and Acts 19 is about that very issue. The male priests were castrated "galli" who sexually submitted to male worshippers.

Of the two papers I will end up doing on this topic, the first outlines the Cybele/Galli traditions and lines it up with Romans 1.26-27, as well as reviewing early church commentaries on the topic that make the direct connection. The second paper will look at later church commentaries that do the same. Except for the Ambrosiaster passage you all helped me with earlier (THANKS AGAIN!), all of the first paper was Greek. The second paper has a lot more Latin authors, but fortunately they are simply quotes of Romans 1.26-27, without a lot of commentary clarifying the context, or the sex of the participants.

By way of brief supporting examples, Hippolytus (2nd CE; Refutation of all heresies V.2) and Athanasius (3rd CE, Contra Gentes) and Eusebius (4th CE, Prep Gosp 7) all directly talk about Rom 1.26-27 in terms of an the goddess cults with emasculated priests and licentiousness. Those are the only direct references, although I also make the case that Chrysostom (4th CE, Homilies on Romans 4) is making the connection as well--he never talks directly about the "goddess" cults when he talks about Rom 1.26-27, but later in the same chapter, all of which is about this same section of Romans, he talks about the emasculated priests along with idolatry.

A number of scholars have been making these connections--again, I can provide a bibliography if there is popular interest in the topic, although none of it is really "Latin" oriented. Other than the texts I've asked about here, the only other Latin text that seems useful is by Hincmar (9th CE) who talks about Rom 1.26b as if they are heterosexuals having unnatural sex, not "lesbians." Although it's difficult to make a strong case with an "argument from silence," the evidence that 1.26b is about female homogenitality is amazingly thin, since there are almost no clarifying texts that indicate two women are present in this verse, and several that very clearly claim it is heterosexual--so what has been interesting to me as I've scoured through the Latin texts trying to find useful documentation, I literally can't find any from the 1st millenium that are much more than quotes of the verses--or if they expand on it, they dont' seem to talk about the verses in terms of sex, but seem to just skip over commenting on these verses. In that sense it doesn't seem to really hurt me that I'm not Latin-fluent, since there really is very little early Latin writing on these two verses!!

[Nooj]

Good luck to you on that paper. It sounds very interesting.

[jtownsle]

The more I think about "inter se", the less convinced I am that the best translation is the ambiguous "among themselves." For one, it sheds no light on the question of whether the reference is the men among the men and the women among the women, or the men among the women. I think a more literal translation, as well as being more clear in the English, gives preference for the latter: "inter se"="with each other." For example, Baldi in Classical Philology 74(1), 1979: 49-52 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/268262), doesn't have any "inter se" translations of "among themselves" but always constructs it as "each other."

Riddle and Georges gives "one another"
http://books.google.com/books?id=oZdAAA ... al&f=false

[Cinefactus]

I fail to see the difference in meaning. There are examples anyway where the Latin uses inter se and English translators have used among themselves, eg Mark 9:34

Vulgate at illi tacebant siquidem inter se in via disputaverant quis esset illorum maior


KJV But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

You could switch this with with each other, and the meaning would be identical.

[Nikolaos]

hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt

"All of these differ among themselves in language, customs and laws."

I think that "with each other" is a liberal translation.