I interviewed the Rev. Donald H. Mader (see link below), who wrote the first in-depth analysis of the pederastic implications of the Centurion passage. It's a shame that the analysis isn't online; it's a carefully nuanced argument, taking into account evidence against his thesis. Similarly, in his interview, he readily discussed the arguments that could be made against his thesis.

I find Rev. Mader's argument that the passage might refer to pederasty convincing. Where I depart from him is in the belief that we can know from this what Jesus's attitude was toward pederasty. In Luke's story of Zacchaeus, all that we see is Jesus bidding the tax collector to dinner. There's no rebuke by Jesus. I'll grant that Jesus gives his blessing after Zacchaeus has repented, but believing that Jesus would only bless someone who had repented of his sins seems to me to oversimplify Jesus' approach toward people. He just doesn't seem to have been the type of person who went around delivering lectures to people who were believed to be sinners. To so-called righteous people, on the other hand, he could be ferocious. So I would only consider his silence about the possible relationship between the Centurion and his servant to be a good indicator of his acceptance of pederasty if the Centurion were one of the "righteous" people whom he routinely scourged. That was far from the case.

I simply don't think there's evidence one way or the other of what Jesus thought about any form of homosexuality, or many other subjects. And I think attempts to show that there is such evidence stem from a desire to see the Bible as a step-by-step instruction manual rather than a general moral guide.

Dusk


• ( http link ) Beyond the Centurion and His Servant
[Anonymouse]