Rating: 
Summary: A must-read for members of a diverse society
Review: I not only had the pleasure of reading this book--surely one of the best works of historical scholarship in the twentieth century--I also had the privilege of taking courses with Professor Boswell. Prof. Boswell demonstrates with convincing scholarship that Christian attitudes toward homosexuality have _always_ been interpretive, and that the interpretations have varied greatly across time. This sharply undercuts the modern American conception, pushed by certain groups, that homophobia is an immutable constant in Christianity. For that reason alone, the book is a must-read for Americans wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. But at the same time, it is a pity that the book is often seen in those terms. The political nature of the issue today means that reactions to Prof. Boswell's work are politicized. But the book can be read by history students as a inspirational primer on method as well. Whether your field is late modern Chinese economic history or Roman military history, this book is a shining example of what historical scholarship is all about.
Rating:
Summary: Buy this book!
Review: I shall quote from my web page: If you are gay and Christian, or gay and were Christian, or are Christian and trying not to be gay, get this book. It saved my life. I had huge problems reconciling religion and homosexuality. In chapter 4 (my favorite chapter, entitled "The Scriptures") Boswell shows how New Testament passages are misinterpreted and that for Christians the laws in the Old Testament no longer apply (2 Corinthians 3 is an example). It's interesting to see the change in attitudes through the ages. Actually it's quite amazing and sad. It's fascinating to read about early Church leaders who were gay and how they argued with others who said they were wrong. Definitely get this book; it is amazing. It also has quite interesting poems and letters with homosexual themes.
Rating:
Summary: Homophobes should read this...but would it help?
Review: I was truly astounded by this book. Having grown up in a Christian home, I had heard all the scriptures supposedly regarding gay people many times. Reading this book was a true revelation. I never realized the impact of thousands of years of rewrites and (mis)translations upon the Bible. Moreover, Boswell has researched the history and customs of the ancient world with a remarkable degree of thoroughness, especially when one considers that the available material must of necessity be somewhat fragmented and disjointed due to the passage of so much time.Gay people who are still struggling for self-acceptance must read this book. It was one of the greatest comforts to me to discover that homophobia and Christianity are not related to each other. Homophobic so-called Christians would also do well to read this book, although, having read some of the other reviews posted here, I suppose that people who have made up their minds to hate will continue to do so no matter what.
Rating: 
Summary: Pointless
Review: It does not matter what members of the clergy and various saints have done. What matters is what GOD Himself does and says. He has spoken, and His WORD is living and active. "For He spoke and it came to be; He commanded and it stood firm." (Psalm 33:9). God is TRUTH, regardless of what men have done with His WORD.
Everyone who wishes to have eternal life must be born again (John 3:3). When you receive salvation through Jesus Christ, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. 1Corinthians 2 teaches that the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God, and that no one has the thoughts of God except for the Holy Spirit. If you are saved, ask the Holy Spirit to help you discern if this book represents God's thoughts, and if it is a reflection of God's holiness. To praise this book as a correction to God's judgment of homosexuality brings to mind two verses. Romans 1:18-19 ". . . men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." And 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to Him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Don't waste your time reading this book. Read the Bible instead, and let the Truth of Jesus Christ set you free.
Rating:
Summary: christianity,social tolerance,and homosexuality
Review: It is a very recommendable book not only for English-speaking people but also for us Japanese. At first I had read it in Japanese translation and now again in English, GREEK et LATINE. I know that some Fundamentalists want to try polemic defiances with a superstitional bias. However as we know very well the certain dogma of a religion is or was not often in accord with the social realities, e.g. Islamic doctrine in pre-modern muslim society where male-boy love was very popular. And also in Japan , although Buddhist teachings did not always encourage same-sex relationshipps , after ancient Greek only Japanese could have enhanced male homosexuality to highly ethical valued SHUDO i.e. the way of male love.So in Japan ,nobody thinks that homosexual love is unusual or sinful traditionaly-- at least those who have some reasoning power never-- . Of course there are a few exceptions e.g. the cultists of dangerous pseudo-religion.
Rating: 
Summary: A bold, but flawed, pioneering work
Review: It's been more than twenty years since John Boswell's pioneering work on the history of homosexuality first appeared. Boswell argues that originally homosexuality was tolerated and admired in the urban world of the Roman Empire. Contrary to what one may think it was not Christianity per se that reduced this tolerance. In fact, one cannot show that the New Testament was hostile to homosexuality at all. Instead there was a certain decline of tolerance as the urban civilization of Rome collapsed. Yet for much of what we know as the Dark Ages homosexuality was viewed as at most a venial sin, and legal prohibitions against it were limited and ineffective. Indeed as urban civilization recovered by the eleventh and twelfth centuries a flourishing gay subculture arose, celebrating homosexual love. But over the next few centuries as powerful states seeking to enforce their authority arose, new anti-sodomy laws appeared, demanding death for its violators. There is much in this book that is interesting and informative, and certainly there was no other work like it at the time. We learn about the weaknesses of much of the "natural law" case against homosexuality. Homosexuality is supposedly unnatural because animals do not do it. But anti-homosexuals also argue that homosexuality is wrong because vile animals like hyenas commit it. Of course, there is considerable evidence of homosexual behaviour among animals. And many undesirable traits, such as incest, are endemic among animals. And why should animals be the criterion of what is natural anyway? Anyway, much of the argument on what is perverted sex was based on considerable ignorance of the animal world, such as the false belief that hyenas were hermaphrodites or that oral sex is wrong because weasels conceive through their mouths. The same Christians who denounced homosexuality also vigorously denounced "Lending at interest, sexual intercourse during the menstrual period, jewellery or dyed fabrics, shaving, regular bathing, wearing wigs," and much else. In the eighth century the penance given for a priest who went hunting was allotted at three years, while some homosexual acts only got a year. We are given many samples of homosexual poetry, many of them written by high ranking clergymen, the more tactful of whom were canonized. Yet this book has a number of major weaknesses that make Boswell much inferior to such other pioneering works of social history as The Making of the English Working Class or Roll Jordan Roll. His distinction between a more tolerant "urban" and a more intolerant "rural" is hopelessly vague. Not all "rural" societies disliked homosexuals. Moreover, the Roman Empire was overwhelmingly rural anyway, more than 90%, with land being the overwhelming source of wealth. To make things more confusing Boswell suggests that the thirteenth century turn had more to do with increasing state authority (also present in the Roman Empire) and increasing xenophobia as part of the crusades (also present during the Roman Empire, and for the twelfth century as well). Boswell displays a certain tendentiousness throughout the book. At one point Boswell suggests that there was less prejudice against the "passive" position in the Roman Empire because certain emperors indulged in it. But since the emperors in question were Caligula and Nero, one suspects that they were not good examples (Boswell also cites Nero as an example of homosexual marriage). Much of the book depends on the argument from silence, a questionable procedure when most Classical evidence has been lost to us. But the largest problem with the book is Boswell's discussion of scripture. Boswell was both a homosexual and a Catholic and wanted to find a way to reconcile them. He was not successful. His chapter starts out well by pointing out that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is less about the evils of homosexuality than of abusing strangers. But then Boswell has to deal with the discussion of homosexuality in Leviticus, which pronounces it an abomination and demands the death penalty. Boswell argues that since Paul denounced the law Christians need no longer be bound by it. This is clearly tendentious. 2 Timothy refers to the divine inspiration of scripture and the Sermon on the Mount explicitly says that the Law remains in full force until the end. Moreover, Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain moral rules against bestiality, incest and child sacrifice that are still in force. It is revealing that Boswell does not discuss at all the problem of antinomianism or the role of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in Christians thought. If one is a Christian it would be most logical to argue that the law is still in force except (a) where the New Testament explicitly challenges it, (b) when it deals with matters that are now irrelevant (sacrifice ritual), or (c) when it deals with specifically Jewish matters. Boswell also tries to argue that Paul is criticizing not homosexuals but male heterosexuals who betray their nature by indulging in homosexuality. This makes the questionable assumption that people in the first century CE reified people by the sexual acts they committed. Why would Jews like Jesus and Paul, who are so unenthusiastic about marriage, extend to their followers a whole new realm of fornication? Boswell weakly suggests that because heterosexuals produce children who were commonly abandoned and abused, while homosexuals didn't, Christians viewed homosexuality as a lesser problem. But this is mere suggestion; he gives no evidence of such a well developed moral concern in the book. It is not surprising therefore then that scholars such as Robin Lane Fox, Ramsay Macmullen, and David Wright have been critical of Boswell's thesis.
Rating:
Summary: A bold, but flawed, pioneering work
Review: It's been more than twenty years since John Boswell's pioneering work on the history of homosexuality first appeared. Boswell argues that originally homosexuality was tolerated and admired in the urban world of the Roman Empire. Contrary to what one may think it was not Christianity per se that reduced this tolerance. In fact, one cannot show that the New Testament was hostile to homosexuality at all. Instead there was a certain decline of tolerance as the urban civilization of Rome collapsed. Yet for much of what we know as the Dark Ages homosexuality was viewed as at most a venial sin, and legal prohibitions against it were limited and ineffective. Indeed as urban civilization recovered by the eleventh and twelfth centuries a flourishing gay subculture arose, celebrating homosexual love. But over the next few centuries as powerful states seeking to enforce their authority arose, new anti-sodomy laws appeared, demanding death for its violators. There is much in this book that is interesting and informative, and certainly there was no other work like it at the time. We learn about the weaknesses of much of the "natural law" case against homosexuality. Homosexuality is supposedly unnatural because animals do not do it. But anti-homosexuals also argue that homosexuality is wrong because vile animals like hyenas commit it. Of course, there is considerable evidence of homosexual behaviour among animals. And many undesirable traits, such as incest, are endemic among animals. And why should animals be the criterion of what is natural anyway? Anyway, much of the argument on what is perverted sex was based on considerable ignorance of the animal world, such as the false belief that hyenas were hermaphrodites or that oral sex is wrong because weasels conceive through their mouths. The same Christians who denounced homosexuality also vigorously denounced "Lending at interest, sexual intercourse during the menstrual period, jewellery or dyed fabrics, shaving, regular bathing, wearing wigs," and much else. In the eighth century the penance given for a priest who went hunting was allotted at three years, while some homosexual acts only got a year. We are given many samples of homosexual poetry, many of them written by high ranking clergymen, the more tactful of whom were canonized. Yet this book has a number of major weaknesses that make Boswell much inferior to such other pioneering works of social history as The Making of the English Working Class or Roll Jordan Roll. His distinction between a more tolerant "urban" and a more intolerant "rural" is hopelessly vague. Not all "rural" societies disliked homosexuals. Moreover, the Roman Empire was overwhelmingly rural anyway, more than 90%, with land being the overwhelming source of wealth. To make things more confusing Boswell suggests that the thirteenth century turn had more to do with increasing state authority (also present in the Roman Empire) and increasing xenophobia as part of the crusades (also present during the Roman Empire, and for the twelfth century as well). Boswell displays a certain tendentiousness throughout the book. At one point Boswell suggests that there was less prejudice against the "passive" position in the Roman Empire because certain emperors indulged in it. But since the emperors in question were Caligula and Nero, one suspects that they were not good examples (Boswell also cites Nero as an example of homosexual marriage). Much of the book depends on the argument from silence, a questionable procedure when most Classical evidence has been lost to us. But the largest problem with the book is Boswell's discussion of scripture. Boswell was both a homosexual and a Catholic and wanted to find a way to reconcile them. He was not successful. His chapter starts out well by pointing out that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is less about the evils of homosexuality than of abusing strangers. But then Boswell has to deal with the discussion of homosexuality in Leviticus, which pronounces it an abomination and demands the death penalty. Boswell argues that since Paul denounced the law Christians need no longer be bound by it. This is clearly tendentious. 2 Timothy refers to the divine inspiration of scripture and the Sermon on the Mount explicitly says that the Law remains in full force until the end. Moreover, Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain moral rules against bestiality, incest and child sacrifice that are still in force. It is revealing that Boswell does not discuss at all the problem of antinomianism or the role of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in Christians thought. If one is a Christian it would be most logical to argue that the law is still in force except (a) where the New Testament explicitly challenges it, (b) when it deals with matters that are now irrelevant (sacrifice ritual), or (c) when it deals with specifically Jewish matters. Boswell also tries to argue that Paul is criticizing not homosexuals but male heterosexuals who betray their nature by indulging in homosexuality. This makes the questionable assumption that people in the first century CE reified people by the sexual acts they committed. Why would Jews like Jesus and Paul, who are so unenthusiastic about marriage, extend to their followers a whole new realm of fornication? Boswell weakly suggests that because heterosexuals produce children who were commonly abandoned and abused, while homosexuals didn't, Christians viewed homosexuality as a lesser problem. But this is mere suggestion; he gives no evidence of such a well developed moral concern in the book. It is not surprising therefore then that scholars such as Robin Lane Fox, Ramsay Macmullen, and David Wright have been critical of Boswell's thesis.
Rating:
Summary: Pointless
Review: Let me state at the outset that I am a gay man, and that my first reading of this book really impressed me. It got rave reviews almost everywhere, and I was pretty much convinced that it was brilliant. But then I had my First Doubt. Specifically (and these discussions have to be specific), I was unable to verify John Boswell's ideas about the ancient Greek words "malakos" and "arsenokoites." In fact, every scholar of ancient Greek I was able to interrogate replied that "malakos" (otherwise, "malthakos") was a VERY well-known word which went into Latin as "mollis" and was universally understood to mean "soft." When used of a man, it meant "effeminate homosexual." Similarly, "arsenokoites" refers to an "active homosexual." Used together, they clearly describe male homosexuals, active and passive. Boswell spends pages and pages trying to wish these facts away, for no motive I could understand. Once you begin looking into details like this, doubts only increase. And then, one fine day, you will think about the book's major point, which was that Christianity had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rise of homophobia in the European nations which succeeded the Roman Empire -- not until early medieval times, at least. And then Wild Laughter will seize you. What IS the man talking about? John Boswell, a devout Catholic, trying to whitewash the madly homophobic Catholic Church, and its 2,000-year crusade of death and terror against gay people (especially males)? So let it be known: this book is the Bible of the Gay Christian movement. Gay Christians love this book, cannot be parted from it, and will hear no evil spoken of it. Everyone else knows it is rubbish, right on the order of "Black Athena." For further information, consult Dynes, Wayne R.: "The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality."
Rating:
Summary: Badly misleading advocacy scholarship
Review: Let me state at the outset that I am a gay man, and that my first reading of this book really impressed me. It got rave reviews almost everywhere, and I was pretty much convinced that it was brilliant. But then I had my First Doubt. Specifically (and these discussions have to be specific), I was unable to verify John Boswell's ideas about the ancient Greek words "malakos" and "arsenokoites." In fact, every scholar of ancient Greek I was able to interrogate replied that "malakos" (otherwise, "malthakos") was a VERY well-known word which went into Latin as "mollis" and was universally understood to mean "soft." When used of a man, it meant "effeminate homosexual." Similarly, "arsenokoites" refers to an "active homosexual." Used together, they clearly describe male homosexuals, active and passive. Boswell spends pages and pages trying to wish these facts away, for no motive I could understand. Once you begin looking into details like this, doubts only increase. And then, one fine day, you will think about the book's major point, which was that Christianity had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rise of homophobia in the European nations which succeeded the Roman Empire -- not until early medieval times, at least. And then Wild Laughter will seize you. What IS the man talking about? John Boswell, a devout Catholic, trying to whitewash the madly homophobic Catholic Church, and its 2,000-year crusade of death and terror against gay people (especially males)? So let it be known: this book is the Bible of the Gay Christian movement. Gay Christians love this book, cannot be parted from it, and will hear no evil spoken of it. Everyone else knows it is rubbish, right on the order of "Black Athena." For further information, consult Dynes, Wayne R.: "The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality."
Rating:
Summary: GAY PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Review: This is a very recommendable book, not only for English-speaking people but also for us Japanese Christians. At first I had read it in Japanese translation and now again in English,Greek, Latine et Hebraic. I know that some Fundamentalists want to try polemic defiances with a superstitious bias. However in JAPAN nobody thinks that same-sex relationship is unusual or sinful traditionaly --- at least we have some reasoning power never do think so ---. Of course there are a few exceptions e.g. the cultists of dangerous pseudo-religion. As everybody knows very well, that certain dogma of a religion is or was not often in accord with the social realities e.g. Islamic doctrine in pre-modern muslim society where male-boy love was very popular. Also in Japan , although Buddhist teachings did not always encourage homoeroticism enthusiastically , after ancient Greek only Japanese could have enhanced male-male sex highly ethical valued SHUDO i.e. the way of male love.
|
