70 Thomas Hobson Gomorrah, but only speaks of ἀσέλγεια, not of ἀρσενοκοίτης. The Dida- che uses παιδοφθορέω (2,2), but never ἀσέλγεια. Hermas uses ἀσέλγεια (although possibly to mean “lawlessness”, not specifically sexual), but Hermas never refers explicitly to homosexual behavior. Clement of Alexandria is the first post-apostolic writer to juxtapose ἀσέλγεια with μοιχεία and παιδεραστία (Stromata 2.7.34.2.2; 3.4.36.4.2). The first passage resembles the elements of Boswell’s “triple prohibition”. In the latter passage, Clement makes it clear that μοιχεία and παιδεραστία are the first behaviors that come to mind when he speaks of ἀσέλγεια. Note that the word ἀσέλγεια appears on Jesus’ lips only in a Gospel written apparently for the church at Rome. The word appears in the only “sin list” attributed to Jesus, recorded both by Matthew (15,16-20) and by Mark (7,18-23). The context is a dispute about where Jesus stands on observance of the Jewish law (specifically in the area of handwashing). Has Jesus come to abrogate the Law? Is he an antinomian, a promoter of moral laxity? Or is there a law for his followers to obey? Is it the Jewish law in its entirety that Jesus’ followers must obey? Or if not, then exactly what moral principles does Jesus teach?12 Jesus explains to his disciples why food and ritual cleanliness are not true sources of defilement, because the items in question do not enter the heart, but the stomach, and are then expelled. Jesus then proceeds to iden- tify a collection of sins that do defile the human heart13. Both Matthew and Mark include both πορνεία and μοιχεία on their lists. Only Mark has ἀσέλγεια on his list also. It would appear that the writer of Mark, writing for a general audience, saw a need to spell out an element of Jesus’ teaching that addressed a sexual lifestyle issue among Gentiles, a matter that was less of an issue for Matthew’s predominantly Jewish audience. Furthermore, for some reason, neither πορνεία nor μοιχεία specifically addressed the sexual sin he had in mind. It is likely (particularly in light of a text such as Melito, De Pasc. 389-94) that Jesus was speaking of violations of the Torah such as homosexual behavior, incest, or bestiality, rather than comparatively less shocking sins such as adultery and forni- cation. The theory articulated here does not depend on any one approach to literary dependence in the Gospels. One must ask either why Matthew See the discussion in C. E. Carleston, “The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the 12 Law in Matthew and Mark”, NTS 15 (1968-9) 75-96. Jesus’ sin list parallels a sin list in 1QS 4 9-11: “But to the spirit of perversity belong 13 greed, remissness in right doing, wickedness and falsehood, pride and presumption, ruthless deception and guile, abundant insolence, shortness of temper and profusion of folly, arro- ), filthy ways gant passion, abominable acts in a spirit of lewdness ( ), a blasphemous tongue, blindness in the thralldom of unchastity ( of eyes, dullness of ears, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart”. (Emphasis added.)