Talk:Homosexual readings of Jesus and John

An entry from Homosexual readings of Jesus and John appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 February, 2007.

Wikipedia

Comment 1

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of Christians do not hold this view. If it is indeed as prevalent as the article indicates, surely some space can be given for the inevitable naysayers? It's even indicated in the text that this view is held to be a blasphemy by the "establishment." I think it would be of great behoof to include the rationale whereby this is considered blasphemous, at least. Deranged bulbasaur 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly all that would be welcome here, the views of Christians as well as of others. The article is in the very beginning bluhhartist who made the piece believed in the "homosexual readings" theory, and that the piece itself depicts such a reading. As to this being in the beginning stages: fair enough. I'm just making note of what I percieve as an imbalance. Deranged bulbasaur 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the early leeway, it will be needed for as contentious a topic as this. The image in question, however, is an appropriate example of such homosexual readings. Even though we cannot know what the intention of the artist was at the time he made this piece, modern observers have identified a homoerotic element in it. Crompton (see the Notes), as a matter of fact, gives up almost a full page to a full color illustration of the work. This in a book that treats only the topic of homosexuality. Perhaps a footnote to that effect in the article or the caption would be in order. Haiduc 05:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haiduc here. The caption makes no claims about the artist's intention, and the citation demonstrates that such images are important to the homosexual readings.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think at this point it has been adequately sourced and demonstrated that there is any sort of historical tradition along the lines of a homosexual relationship of Jesus and John. If anything this is a rather recent interpretation from what I see. The Historical references section needs to be better sourced to support this contention in the opening of the article.--Isotope23 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how you can challenge the historicity of a view that goes back to James I and before. Haiduc 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've insufficiently sourced it. Where is the citation for "Saint Aelred of Rievaulx referred to the relationship of Jesus and John as a 'marriage'."? Who "claimed that it was held by Francesco Calcagno..."? The James I passage is cited to a Rictor Norton website, but I don't see a clear cition there that cites his source. My point is that right now the article is not sufficently sourced to demonstrate that there is indeed a historical legacy. I've added fact tags to the passages that should have citations from a reliable source. Also, reverting me with a summary of "wishful thinking" is silly. All I want to see is sources. In the long run it makes this a better article.--Isotope23 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, and I agree about the process improving the article. But obviously using fact tags, as you have been doing, is a much more helpful contribution. As far as disparaging Rictor Norton's work, I think that is a questionable approach. He is a PhD who has been publishing on gender studies in scholarly journals since the mid-seventies, often in collaboration with other recognized scholars. I don't think it is our place to presume to check his work. Haiduc 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I jumped the gun a bit when I removed the text altogether. I was being WP:BOLD, but that edit was probably bordering into being non-productive.

I'm not disparaging Rictor Norton or his work. I'm not a big fan of website sources that are apparently the personal site of the author and don't state the sources for the text. I probably wasn't overly clear on that point. Is this assertion from a book of his?--Isotope23 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23 about the Norton site. For the St. Ailred line, he doesn't say where Ailred called Jesus and John's relationship a marriage (perhaps Spiritual Friendship?). Additionally he makes the claim Ailred "had several same-sex unions"; I've never heard this before, in fact I've only heard about his dedication to celibacy. I'm not trying to be disparaging, either; it's not Norton's prerogative to provide his sources at his website. But it is ours, and I just don't think that site cuts it in this case. I also take issue with the cite to the Religious Tolerance website; it's is not a scholarly source. It might be possible use whatever sources they were quoting for their article, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no answer to questioning the credentials of a scholar of Norton's caliber, or the imputation that a work of his that is not documented to the level of a scholarly paper must automatically be discounted. As for the Religious Tolerance site, I have updated the ref to show that in the first place the information drawn from there is neither critical nor earth-shaking. Also, I hope you will not mind if I point out that after criticizing Norton for not being sufficiently sourced, now you are questioning an article which, even though written by someone claiming no scholarly credentials, is meticulously and scrupulously constructed, and fully sourced. Am I alone in detecting some inconsistency here? Haiduc 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take it like that. I know you've done a lot of hard work improving the article. I'm not criticizing Norton or questioning his credentials, I'm just questioning the usefulness of that particular article, in the particular case of St. Ailred. I'd prefer a reference to the primary source where Ailred said that, and the article doesn't say where he did. As for Religious Tolerance, I would prefer we use the references they used, rather than quoting the group directly as an authority, but maybe that's just me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First let say that the tone of the debate here, and at the John the apostle, have been a cut above what I have been accustomed to at many other articles. I am continually surprised by the kindness and patience shown here. Your point of view, Cuchullain, is unimpeachable. I too would prefer to use more complete sources, but clearly am unable to do so. That's why I hold on to the ones we have, not because they are ideal but because they are the best obtainable at this point.

I would add another comment to that. First, while primary sources have a certain appeal, they are also risky since they usually want interpretation, or translation, in order to make sense to modern minds. For that reason, scholarly second sources are best, especially if more than one can be brought to bear on the subject. Haiduc 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right about secondary sources. I'll dig around for some on the Ailred quote; I'm betting it won't be too hard to find, since the saint's sexuality has been the subject of much discussion in recent years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I agree about sources. It would be better to find the primary sources, rather than quoting references to the primary sources by secondary studies. This bolsters the reliability and the verifiability of the article. By the way, Haiduc, you have done a good job handling a contentious issue both here and on the John the Apostle page. Well done. -- Pastordavid 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, appears I didn't read far enough down about sources. Let me say this about primary v. secondary sources -- Don't use secondary soures to speak about primary sources - send people directly to the source. Use secondary sources when dealing with the theory and interpretation of what the primary source means. -- Pastordavid 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with primary sources in this case would be exactly that given at Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. It's not our place to interpret what St. Ailred meant when he called Jesus and John's relationship a "marriage". He might have meant it literally: "Jesus and John were in a contractual homosexual marriage." He might have been joking: "Jesus and John were celibate, so it was basically a marriage!" This doesn't exclude us from having to supply the primary source wherever Ailred said it; we just need to rely on the words of experts for the interpretation. I still can't find the primary source; I'm thinking of writing to Norton's site to ask him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In a related note. Many of the sources are not given in a complete form. Whoever has access to them needs to make sure there is publisher, date, etc. information. gren グレン 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whose "mainstream"

A lot of arbitrary and overbid assertions seem to have filtered their way into the article.

1. There was no such clear distinction between the uses of the various terms for love, with later writers using them quasi interchangeably, as the use of paidophilia and paiderasteia shows.
2. The theologians referred to may be seen as mainstream by some and as extremists by others.
3. There is nothing mainstream about the literal interpretation and blind obedience of OT strictures, else we should all be wife-beating slave owners.

What kind of "mainstream" is this?! Haiduc 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'Mainstream' is an incredibly obvious weasel word anyway. CaveatLector^Talk 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Frakes

Unless I have missed something, the following text, just removed from the article, (as well as the article referenced) says nothing about either Jesus or John:

Robert Frakes of Clarion University views the homosexual interpretation as unlikely given that Roman custom rejected homosexuality after the official acceptance of Christianity by Constantine I, whereas it had been accepted before. In the History News Network he wrote: "As his [Constantine] sons came of age in an increasingly Christian society, they and many of their advisors would have grown up with Biblical strictures. Thus, the pronouncements of the Book of Leviticus (18. 22, 20. 13) against male homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death in God’s eyes would logically have influenced writers of imperial law. Such strictures were reinforced in the New Testament (Romans 1. 24-27). So, it would appear that the growing influence of the Bible in an increasingly Christian Roman empire led emperors to condemn homosexual unions."

Haiduc 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC) And this also refers to a text that says nothing on the topic and is only invoked to push a personal theory:

Many theologians point to Jesus’ stated support of the marriage bond in the book of Matthew.

Haiduc 14:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay with the Greeks

Greeks may have understood, but if I understand ancient Jewish culture correctly, they definitely would not have understood. Each participant would have faced a "firing squad" of stone throwers without a rabbi to call a halt to it with a few well-chosen words of wisdom! Nothing would have played as well into the hands of the "Pharisees and Scribes" (and Sanhedrin) as a relationahip between Jesus and anybody else. Forget the theological trial. His own followers would have stoned him! And cheerfully! It's fun to rewrite history, but it kind of needs to make sense. I've read more believable science-fiction! Student7 02:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category reversion

Instead of reversion, maybe someone could give reasons for the categorization and removing it? Let me ask this. Let's say I read the publications of a public figure who is running for President of the US. I decide (as do a number scholarly writers) that his writing deserve attention for sounding, say, alcoholic, (or whatever). I can start an article that says "The alcoholic writings of Ivan Roe." I suppose I can then categorize it under "Ivan Roe," though most people don't think of this man as an alcoholic.
It seems to me that if this line of writing is allowable, then the category should be allowed as well. As for me, personally, I think the line of thinking is wishful foolishness and would do away with the article. Then the question of categorization doesn't even arise. Student7 15:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)