From lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Thu Dec 10 15:04:48 1992 Received: from aramis.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA16732; Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:04:45 EST Received: from andromeda.rutgers.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA13381; Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:04:43 EST Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23592; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:50:29 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9212101750.AA23592@andromeda.rutgers.edu> Received: from ihb.compuserve.com by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA22316; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:32:15 EST Received: by ihb.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516) id AA17876; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:32:12 -0500 Date: 10 Dec 92 12:19:35 EST From: Tobias S Haller <76675.3032@compuserve.com> Subject: Homosexuals deserve death? Message-Id: <921210171935_76675.3032_DHE37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-To: luti@andromeda.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:50:26 EST Resent-From: Louie Crew Apparently-To: luti Status: R TO: Tom Albrecht CC: Louie Crew The story so far... My thesis is that we cannot distinguish between the moral and cultic law in the Old Testament on the basis of the ascription "abomination" (_tow'evah_) to a particular act. _Tow'evah_ indicates a matter is "taboo" -- whether or not it is also immoral. We must use some other criterion to determine if homosexual acts, called _tow'evah_ in Leviticus 18:22, are in fact violations of the moral code as well as the ritual code. Tom Albrecht offered the following observation. > Any solution to the apparent dilemma between different uses of > tow'evah must deal with the punishment for violations of Torah > commands. There seems to be a distinction made between purely > cultic prohibitions, i.e., food and clothing, and moral ones such > as murder and adultery. Cultic violations were dealt with via > (temporary) excommunication. While this at first appears to be a logical solution it is erroneous on a number of points. "Let him be cut off..." -- a fate worse than death -------------------------------------------------- First, Albrecht appears to confuse uncleanness and the separation entailed through it with "excommunication." Temporary uncleanness results from any number of actions, including any emission of semen (v. Lev 15), contact with menstrual flow, contact with a dead body, and so on. Certain diseases, such as leprosy, generate permanent uncleanness. But cultic violations such as eating non-kosher food (Lev 7.27, 17.10,14,25) or eating in an impure state (Lev 7.20-21); and weightier breaches of the cult such as idolatry or sorcery (Lev 20.2- 5,27), entail punishment by what our translations call being "cut off from one's people." The Jewish legal term is "excision," _karet_. There is considerable debate on the exact nature of _karet_, but all agree it to be far from temporary! It is not inflicted by an earthly tribunal, but by God. Some commentators, including the Qumran community (v., 1QS 8.22-24) consider it to include execution; and certainly some of the cultic acts which entail _karet_ *also* entail execution (as in the case of Molech worship). Maimonides (Teshufa 8.1) considered _karet_ to be *more* serious than the death penalty, since punishment suffered through execution could expiate sin, while _karet_, unaccompanied by earthly punishment, entailed the "death of the soul" in the hereafter. One is "cut off" both in this world and in the world to come, by divine retribution. Others understand _karet_ as either premature death, or the death of all one's descendants, or dying childless. To the Jewish people, for whom the notion of "havdalah" or distinction between them and the rest of the world fixed their identity, being cut off from that identity is the most tragic and serious of punishments. This is far from a minor or temporary punishment. It is a fate worse than death. Let the punishment fit the crime -------------------------------- Albrecht continues: > In the case of moral violations the mandated punishment is > corporal/capital. The punishment for homosexual activity would > seem to place it in the latter category rather than the former. > Death is too severe a punishment for cultic violations. Again this is erroneous. There is no easy equivalence in the Old Testament between "moral crime and death." Death is _precisely_ the punishment meted out in the case of clearly cultic violations. The most obvious, of course, is idolatry. But "lighter matters" such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath are punishable by death (Numbers 15:32-36), as is the improper eating of dedicated food (Numbers 18:32), wrongful exercise of priesthood (Num 3:10), and trespass of the sacred precincts by a non-Levite (Num 1:51). These are all cultic violations, for in the absence of the cult there would be no crime. Paul to the Romans ------------------ Finally, Albrecht notes: > I think the Jewish apostle Paul understood this distinction. > Certain moral sin deserves death (Romans 1:32). Homosexual > activity is in the context of the discussion. And Paul doesn't seem > to indicate that homosexual sin is culturally relative. The context of Paul's discussion is idolatry, not homosexuality. Homosexual acts are incidental to his argument. He is saying precisely that homosexual acts _are_ culturally relative, a direct result of the practice of idolatry. Moreover, your suggestion that the death sentence is contextually connected with homosexuality is not borne out by the text. Homosexuality appears, from the text, to be punishment in and of itself for having departed from the true God to worship idols, "receiving in their own persons the due punishment for their error [i.e., of worshipping idols]." (Rom 1.27) The condemnation of death follows not upon the mention of homosexual acts, but as the culmination of a long list of _other_ acts indicative of total depravity: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. -- Romans 1:28-32 A conclusion ------------ If one is to conclude that homosexual acts are morally culpable, one must look elsewhere than the Old Testament. The moral and cultic are too tightly entwined there for us to untangle, except by applying some external criterion. Neither the vocabulary nor the penalties will suffice for clarity. As biblical scholar Robin Scroggs points out in his book on homosexuality and the New Testament, the New Testament has nothing to say about faithful, loving, and life-long homosexual relationships either. Thus, those who wish to condemn such relationships on a moral basis have no support from the Bible. Every effort I have seen to condemn such relationships on humanistic or rational grounds, or through the application of "natural law" are hopelessly flawed or tautological. There remains only "tradition," which in this case is, sadly, "error long in use." We, as Christians, have a workable standard to determine morality: the Golden Rule. Why is that not enough for some people? If you continue and read the rest of Paul's Letter to the Romans, you will find that he rejects the Law as a way to salvation. Jesus similarly suggested that the Mote Searching League revise its bylaws and become the Beam Extractors Society. Jesus took on from humanity the role of the rebellious son (Deut 21.20-23), became _tow'evah_ for us, was slain and hanged on the tree, nailing the Law to it, deader than a doornail. Can we not accept that? We have incredible freedom in Christ. I accept that freedom. If you want to be a slave to the Law, that is your prerogative. But please do not seek to saddle me or mine with your burdens. (Matt 23.4) -Tobias ==================== Tobias Stanislas Haller, BSG President, The Catholic Fellowship of the Episcopal Church CompuServe 76675,3032 2462 Webb Avenue + Bronx NY 10468-4802 From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Tue Dec 15 13:55:14 1992 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA02232; Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:55:14 EST Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:55:10 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Subject: Exegesis of NT & Homosexuality Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: admec1.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:55:00 GMT Lines: 333 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov [again, special thanks to Drs Marvin Pate, Steve Tracy and special thanks to works of Michael Ukleja] I. The Greek Terminology The prohibition against homosexuality is mentioned three times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). In 1 Corinthians and I Timothy two Greek words malakos and arsenokoitas- are usually translated "homosexual." Prohomosexual advocates insist that malakos means "soft" or "weak" with the implication of moral softness or moral laxity. They insist that arsenokoitas means "males who go to bed," or "male prostitutes." "There is no reason to believe that either "malakos" or "arsenokoitai" connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every reason to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts."(1) These two words are hotly contested words in homosexual theology. Most Bible translators have rendered them "effeminate" and "homosexuals," respectively. A proper understanding of the words is essential. A. Malakos Both words are found in 1 Corinthians. Malakos means (a) soft of things; clothes, " or (b) "persons; soft, effeminate especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."(2) The Greeks used the word with a nuance, probably similar to the way parents used the word "fairy" or "sissy," however, my generation hardened into "fag" or "queer." The Greeks took this word, which can have feminine overtones, and applied it to a man. According to the context it can have the idea of being weak or loose morally and being effeminate. This may relate to the Greek practice of paiderastia ("lover of boys"), which involved homosexual relations between men and boys. Pederasty was common in the Greek educational system. It was not uncommon for a strong sexual union to result between a young man and an elder teacher who was his model, guide, and initiator.(3) In classical Greek, malakos was also used to refer to boys and men who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.(4) It was also applied to a man taking the female or passive role in thehomosexual relationship. [I might add here, that this has been noted by many an archeologist studying the ancient mystery religions, so this conforms to a very old format] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote Roman Antiquities around 7 B.C., described Aristodemus of Cumae as malakos because he had been "effeminate" (thaludrias) as a child and had undergone the things associated with women.(5) In classical literature the word malakoos is sometimes applied to obviously homosexual persons. Lucian describes the blood of some priests he condemns for passive homosexual behavior as malakos.(6) This cannot be dismissed as not indicating anything about the sexuality of the individuals in question. These were priests who spent their time seeking group sexual encounters. While there is some ambiguity with regard to malakos, it is not beyond reason to see the word representing the passive parties in homosexual intercourse. This is even more reasonable when it is in juxtaposition with arsenokoitas which does imply an active homosexual role. It is interesting that in Aristotle's Problems, a lengthy discussion of the origins of homosexual passivity, he employs the word malakos In its general sense the word does mean "unrestrained," but not without any particularly homosexual context. (7) B. Arsenokoitai The second Greek word, arsenokoitai, appears both in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: IO. It is a compound of two Greek words. The first, arsan means "male," with a strong emphases on sex.(8) It can refer to the sexual nature of man. The second word, koita, means "bed" in general but it is also a "euphemism for sexual intercourse."(9) Arndt and Gingrich translate arsenokoitas a "male homosexual" or a "pederast. "(10) Some try to dismiss the statements of these scholars: "The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones, have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the inference of biblical translators by giving the definition as "sodomite. There is a double irony to this since - as is now generally recognized - the Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality, and since "arsenokoitai" had only a tangential relation, if any, to homosexuality." (11) I think three things should be said conceming this statement. First, one should be cautious when going against the tide of scholarly opinion. "The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones" have understood the word to refer to homosexuality. Second, it is an assumption based on erroneous exegesis to see the Sodomites not being punished for homosexuality. Third, even if arsenokoitas had only a tangential relation to homosexuality, it could have easily become a euphemism for homosexuality. This is even more understandable when it is considered that Paul already used words like "fornicator" (pornos), "adulterer" (moixos, "effeminate" (malakos), along with arsenokoitas. The second half of the compound, koita, is a coarse word. It denotes base or licentious sexual activities (Rom. 13:13). The word is rare, not only in biblical usage but also in other literature. But a strong possible translation for both malakos and arsenokoitas is "the morally loose (effeminate) who allow themselves to be used homosexually" and "the person who is a practicing homosexual." II. Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality There are several passages in the Pauline Epistles condemning homosexuality. Let the reader understand that homosexual theology's major thrust against these passages is what has been called the "abuse" argument. Justification for the practice of homosexuality is seen in interpreting Paul's condemnation to be against homosexual abuse and not against "responsible" homosexual behavior. Some argue that, although this cannot be deduced, it is a strong inference. Blair writes: "In his catalog of vices in which homosexual behavior is listed, it should be noted that it is included with what the apostle regarded as certain heterosexual sins such as adultery, fomication, Epicurean over-indulgence, and general abuse of the body. For perspective, note should be taken of Paul's equally weighty inclusion in this passage of drunkards and the repeated censure of the greedy, the grasping, and those who steal. Here are simply other examples of sinful abuse, since, for example, PauI advocated alcoholic temperence but not necessarily abstinence. He recommends to young' Timothy that he drink some wine for his health (1 Tim. 5:23). Elsewhere, Paul urges whole-hearted enthusiasm in all that one undertakes, but that does not mean the abuse of over-indulgence, greed, or coveting in the process (1 Cor. 10:31). One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof text against aH homosexuality or even all homosexual acts. Of course, homosexual behavior can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be - or any kind of activity can be - but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or specific acts as sinful as such." (12) Upon first reading this, the argument looks strong, but actually it is extremely weak when put to biblical and philosophical tests. Yes,I would say that it is true that an abuse argument in general is valid. Paul did advocated temperance but not necessarily total abstinence. With regard to I Corinthians 6:9, it is correct that Christ-centered worship is the norm as opposed to the abuse of idolatry. It is also true that fornication and adultery are opposed to the norm of sexual relations under the sanctity of marriage. But to use the abuse argument, one must be consistent. In each instance the Bible clearly states the responsible norm as opposed to irresponsible or abusive behavior. A specific and consistent approach of this nature leads to a clear answer as to what is the responsible norm opposed to homosexuality. The responsible norm clearly taught in Scripture is heterosexuality in marriage. Homosexual theologians say that "Homosexual love is not mentioned or condemned in Scripture." In so far as it goes, they are exactly right. Homosexual love is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. The Bible refers only to lust and degrading passions, as in Romans 1. Scripture, however, never approves any form of sexual love within a homosexual relationship. The polarity that brings people together was created to function *only between men and women.* Each homosexual prohibition in and of itself is the abuse. There is no such thing as nonabusive adultery; all adultery is wrong. There is no such thing as nonillicit theft; the Bible clearly states that all theft is wrong. Nor does the Bible teach such a thing as "responsible" covetousness. The Bible emphatically declares that all reviling and swindling is illicit. Without a doubt, homosexuality is placed in the same list of prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10. In the case of homosexuality, motives are not the issue. To make them such, finds no exegetical support in the Scripture. Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is wrong in and of itself. It is an intrinsic evil. We see in Romans 1:24-27, Paul discussing God's wrath over man's sin. It is a devastating passage for the practicing homosexual. But nevertheless it is used by prohomosexuals to affirm homosexual behavior. They say that the Romans passage discusses only a particular kind of homosexual activity and in no way condemns or proscribes the sexual activity of the 20th century person who is exclusively homosexual. It is impossible for a homosexual to "leave" the natural use of the opposite sex, because for him homosexuality is natural and heterosexuality is unnatural. Stablinski explains this position: "Note these keywords: change, leaving. In order to change from or to leave heterosexuality, one must first be heterosexual. What we have is an account of bisexual lust - and St. Paul does say lust, placing this behavior out of the higher realm of love and devotion. It is interesting to note that this is the only Old or New Testament scriptural reference to sexual relations between females." (13) The assumptions behind this type of reasoning are first, homosexuality is constitutional, and second, Paul was not aware of the different types of homosexuality that existed along with their causes. They say that what the Romans passage teaches is a disdain for hedonistic heterosexuals whose jaded appetites turn them from their own sexuality toward the unnatural state of homosexuality. "As far as Paul's knowledge of such sins is concemed, it must be remembered that Tarsus was the third intellectual city in the world, ranking behind Athens and Alexandria. Paul grew up there and would have learned about the Greco-Roman world along with its assorted philosophies and practices. He could quote the Stoic poets. He could cite familiar Stoic virtues. He had learned popular debating techniques. In Tarsus he would have learned about the homosexual practice called pederasty. He would have been familiar with the view among certain Greeks that homosexuality was a highly regarded form of love. This is important to consider when analyzing Paul's inspired writings on this subject." (14) "But there is also another explanation offered by homosexual theologians. In the letter, the practice is seen as a resultant and unfortunate structural problem in the world after the Fall from the original created order. Other listed evidences which Paul mentions are, disobedience to parents, envy, and gossip. The homosexual reference, however, seems literarily most fitting since it illustrates what was perceived to be a reversal of a norm variously described by Paul as the exchange of the truth for a lie, professing wisdom for foolishness, and honoring and serving the creature more than the Creator." (15) Blair is foggy here because he is having a hard time explaining this passage away. I thought it was rather naive because it is destructive to his cause. The "unfortunate structural problem" is a euphemism for sin. This is why envy and gossip are included in the list. Gossip and envy are "unfortunate structural problems." The "reversal of a norm" is also another way of saying sin and depravity. Calling sin "soap" does not make it any less dirty in God's eyes. This is exactly what I maintained that liberal/relativistic theology does. In this case, it does not make sense for Blair to say that homosexuality is just an illustration of depravity if homosexuality is not itself depraved. It is a self-defeating statement. Look, Paul gives the theological rationale for the mandatory condemnation of homosexual behavior. God's judgment gives the individual freedom to go their own way. "God gave them up" (paredoken) to do what they want. It is here that the extent of divine judgment is emphasized by the threefold use of paredoken: "Wherefore God *gave* them up in lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.... For this reason God *gave* them up to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural function for the unnatural.... And just as they did not see fit to retain the fun knowledge of God, God *gave* them up to a depraved mind, to do the things which are not proper" (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). The statement "God gave them up" describes a judicial act.(16) God did more than withdraw His restraining force from mankind; He gave men over tojudgment. Johnson elaborates on this point. "The interpretation is also in harmony with the occurrence of the precisely identical form in Acts 7:42 where, in speaking of Israel's apostasy in the days of Moses, Stephen says, "Then God turned, and gave them up (Gr. iTaQt6(oxEv) to worship the host of heaven." Both the Romans and the Acts passages describe the act of God as a penal infliction of retribution, the expression of an essential attribute consistent with His holiness."(17) Sexual rebellion is the retributive judgment of God. Romans 1:24-27 also looks back to the Genesis account. "For example, the phrases "to birds and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" (v. 23) is surely reminiscent of "the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth" (Gen. 1:26; cf vv. 20-25). And, further, the phrases "the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (lit., the likeness of an image) made like to corruptible man" appear to come from the Genesis account's "Let us make man in our image after our likeness" (1:26). (18) The fact that Paul's argument is tied inseparably to the Genesis account of divine judgment destroys the "abuse" argument and the constitutional assumption! The act of homosexuality per se is wrong. It does not matter what the motives are. It does not matter about one's genetic make-up or hormone count. The act of homosexuality in and of itself is wrong. Paul speaks of individuals being consumed with passion for one another. That sounds definitely like someone with a homosexual orientation. When Paul wrote about women exchanging "natural relations" for unnatural (Rom. 1:27), he implied that they were exclusively homosexual in practice. They were confirmed practicing homosexuals, not heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. Because of sin, normal sex drives are channeled into parafusin ("against nature") expressions. There is no difference between what Paul is describing in Romans I and what the advocates of homosexuality today are trying to elevate to a respectable level. Paul traced mankind's suffering, sorrow, and sin back to the sin of worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. This rebellion caused an impossible barrier in man's relationship to God. But the barrier did not quit there. That was just the root cause. The consequences continued. Barriers began to develop between persons. An individual's relationship to himself and to his fellow man was disturbed. Homosexuality is a glaring example of this broken personal identity. The confusion in man's relationships began with a break in his communion with God. Sexualtiy is a part of this confusion. Paul was saying that not only idolatry but also certain sexual practices changed the created order. A male is supposed to worship God and in marriage to have sex with his wife. A female is supposed to worship God and in marriage to have sex with her husband. When people (or a people, plural; i.e. the West) defy God's order by worshiping creatures, they are judged with a further violation of the created order; they have intercourse with members of the same sex. (19) Paul made no distinction between homosexual lust and behavior. He rejected homosexuality and categorically condemned it as sinful. First Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10, discussed earlier, condemn male homosexuality. Only wild speculation can avoid the conclusion that Paul knew exactly what he meant and how he should be understood when he used these terms. III. Conclusion Believers are to love (accept) homosexuals, but the boundaries of that love must be defined. One must be suspicious of any position that approaches Scripture with a condescending mentality. If the Bible disagrees with their position, then homosexual theologians will try to win their argument with an emotional approach under the guise of love. To them, the real issue is not the Scriptures, but acceptance. "We need the Bible as a source to understanding Christ - but we need to spend more time observing His spirit as related there rather than the "letter of the law" given by His followers in attempting to spread His message. Pick up an edition of the Bible with Christ's recorded statements printed in red. Study only His words, comparing His positive approach throughout the Scriptures. Notice His emphasis on love - His silence on the means of sex but concem only with the motives behind it." (20) Christ had a "love morality," but it was combined with and defined by a "law morality. " "Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men to do so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19). For Christ there was no conflict between law and love. He spoke of love in terms of fulfilling the Law. Prohomosexual writers warp the Scriptures. They are more interested in the feelings of sinners than in the clear guidelines of God's Word. They are more concerned with making homosexuals feel accepted than they are in pointing them to the Savior. Love is "that which seeks the will of God in the object loved."(21) Homosexuality is not the will of God. Homosexual behavior can never be the "loving thing" to do. ______________ Notes: 1. John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality," (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 353. 2. William F. Arndt and F.Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1957), 4th rev. ed., s.v. "malakos," pp. 489-90. 3. Robert L. Sample and Randy Akers, "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and in the Christian Middle Ages," Explor 1 (FaR 1975):15. 4 . Arndt and Gingrich,A Greek-English Lexicon,s.v."malakos,"pp.489-90. 5. Dionystus Roman Antiquities 8. 2. 4. 6. Lucian 37. 7. Aristotle Problems 4. 26. (As quoted by Ukleja) 8. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. "arsenokaitas," p. 108. 9. Ibid., s.v. "koita," p. 440. 10. lbid., s.v. "arsenokaitas," p. 109. 11. Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," pp. 341-42. 12. Ralph Blair, "An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality" (Chicago:MoodyPress, 1963). p. 6. 13. Kim Stablinski, "Homosexuality: What the Bible Does and Does Not Say," The Ladder, July 1969, n.p. 14 . Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," n.p. 15. Blair, "An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality," p. 7. 16. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.,"God Gave Them Up,"Bibliotheca Sacra" (April-June 1972):127-28. 17. lbid., p. 128. 18. Ibid., p. 132. 19. DavidL.Bartlett,"A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality," Foundations: Baptist Joumal of History and Theology 20 (April-June 1977):140. 20. Stablinski, "Homosexuality," n.p. 21. Charles Caldwell Ryrie," A Survey of Bible Doctrine," (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 21. From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Mon Jan 4 13:33:09 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA11300; Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:33:09 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA13519; Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:33:07 -0500 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26159; Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:32:50 -0500 Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA08880 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.3 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:31:07 -0600 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Intertestament Homosexuality Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:31:06 GMT Organization: FNAL Lines: 202 Distribution: world Message-Id: <1i9vpaINN84f@fnnews.fnal.gov> Nntp-Posting-Host: espc3.fnal.gov As promised before the holidays, I was going to post on this topic. Unfortunately there was a death of a close friend, sickness of wife, my nana fell and broke her shoulder, and as an Elder in the church, have been involved councelling an individual who is trying to muster forces behind her to get what she wants or oust the pastor. Needless to say, I didn't have a nice holiday and didn't have time to write my own thesis. Therefore I am going to post this article from DTS's Bibliotheca Sacra. In what research I have done, it seems to be well written. I don't know how many pages it will end up, but will be sure to add all references and footnotes at the end of the post. -Rex A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha James B. De Young Professor of New Testament Language and Literature Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon The contemporary debate surrounding homosexuality has many facets, including sexual behavior, public morality, law, civil rights, public health, and the interpretation of Scripture. The last facet is particularly important, for the way people perceive the relevance of the Bible on the issue will determine in large measure how the issue will be addressed from the other perspectives. In recent years interpretations of the Scriptures have arisen that challenge traditional teaching regarding homosexuality. The "prohomosexual" interpretations are "revisionist" in that they either (1) fail to find homosexuality where it has been found before (Gen. 19; Judg. 19; Ezek. 16; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1; etc.), or (2) claim that passages referring to homosexuality are irrelevant to the Christian church either because they concern Israel's special relationship to God (e.g., Lev. 18; 20), or because they concern a form of homosexuality (rape or pederasty) unlike the modern phenomenon of mutual adult relationships and hence have nothing to contribute. Somewhat surprisingly, this "prohomosexual" position is founded on the witness of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The claim is that the Scriptures, excluding 2 Peter and Jude, do not link homosexuality to Sodom, nor does the Old Testament Apocrypha. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha makes this connection for the first time in reactions to the homosexuality rampant in Greco-Roman society. The Pseudepigrapha subsequently influenced 2 Peter and Jude to connect Sodom with homosexual practices. Therefore, according to Bailey, "the traditional conception of Sodom receives little support from Scripture."(1) Boswell (2) and Scroggs (3) have followed Bailey in this approach. Scroggs indeed believes that condemnations of Scripture concern pederasty, not mutual, adult homosexuality, on the basis of interpretations found in the Pseude- pigrapha. The New Testament, like the Pseudepigrapha, is only reacting to the pederasty of the surrounding pagans. The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of about 14 books or por- tions found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. These are books of history (1 Esdras; 2 Esdras; 1, 2 Maccabees); poetry and wisdom (Ecclesiasticum; Wisdom of Solomon); and fiction having an edifying purpose (Judith; Tobit; Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; Prayer of Manasseh; three additions to Daniel; and additions to Esther). In 1546 the Roman Catholic Church canonized 11 of these books or portions, while Jews and Protestants have refused to view them as authoritative. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha encompasses additional books, most of which were written, like the Apocrypha, between the Testaments of canonical Scripture. Most are named after Old Testament persons who purportedly authored the books, though no one was deceived by these false claims and no one considered these writings canonical. Nevertheless they provide encouragement and insight into the times, and many claim to set forth the course of future events in an apocalyptic genre. It is clear that the proper interpretation of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is crucial to the interpretation of Scripture on the issue of homosexuality and to the modern debate over homosexuality, at least in its use of Jewish and Christian Scriptures. This study seeks to interpret all the references to Sodom and sodomy (homosexuality) found in this intertestamental literature and to critique "pro- homosexual" use of it. The Apocrypha ECCLESIASTICUS This book was written in Hebrew about 180 B.C. and is also known as Sirach or the Wisdom of Joshua, son of Sirach. According to the prologue it was translated into Greek by the grandson of the author in 132 B.C. Prohomosexual interpreters cite Ecclesiasticus 16:8 as making pride the sin of Sodom, not homosexuality. This is supposedly "a more ancient tradition." (4) The pertinent lines are the following: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride." (5) In the context the author successively discussed the judgment of Israel, the giants at the Flood, Sodom, Canaan, and the 600,000 Israelites who died in the sojourn. It is obvious that he was not trying to be exhaustive in giving the reason for judgment in each case. For example only the rebellion of the giants (16:7) is given as the reason for the judgment of the Flood (saying nothing about violence, intermarriage, etc., as Genesis 6 relates). Since Genesis 19 says nothing of pride, it is clear that the author of Ecclesiasticus was interpreting when he assigned pride as the cause of the overthrow. Yet he was not incorrect to do so, as will be shown. Moreover, the author of Ecclesiasticus had a special reason for giving pride as the cause of Sodom's downfall.He viewed pride as especially abhorrent throughout, whereas wisdom is extolled.Wisdom characterizes those who fear the Lord and those who master the Law (15:1).To fear the Lord is "the source of wisdom" (1:14) and "all wisdom comes from the Lord" (1:1; cf. 1:16; 14:20; 15:18; 16:4).Also wisdom is "far from pride" (15:8). According to Ecclesiasticus pride violates both wisdom and fear of the Lord. Thus in the context which includes Sodom, past causes of judgment are interpreted as "pride" (16:8), "obstinacy" (16:10), and being "stiff-necked" (16:11). The author believed that God "will judge a man by his doings" (16:12; cf. 16:14). It must be assumed, therefore, that the author had some deeds in mind for which Sodom was judged, which were the ex pressions of its pride. It is clear that "pride" cannot be limited to a state of being or disposition, but here must include "proud behavior," and perhaps even "sexual desire." (6) The Greek term is uperafania, which occurs as a noun here (often including actions: 10:7, 12-13, 18; 15:8; 16:8; 22:22; 48:18; 51:10) and in the Letter of Aristeas (262, 269) and in Mark 7:22. As the noun so the verb uperafaneo can mean both "be proud, haughty," and "treat arrogantly and disdainfully, despise" (4 Macc 5:21: "the law is despised").(7) So both aspects characterize these cognates. The word "detested" ("whom he detested for their pride") is ebdelukato. In 15:13 it is said, "The Lord hates anything abominable" (Bdelugma). Since these cognates are used in the Septuagint to refer to sodomy (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), it may well be that sodomy is referred to in Ecclesiasticus 15:13; 17:26; and 41:5 by this term (contrast 1:25; 11:2; 13:20, twice; 19:23; 20:8; 27:30). It seems certain that sodomy is the meaning of the term in 49:2. In this verse the author praised King Josiah as a godly king. He wrote, "He succeeded in converting the people, and abolished the wicked abominations." (8) The last two terms translate bdelugmata anomias. These sameterms are juxtaposed in Jeremiah 16:18 and are translated, "detestable idols and abominations" (NASB). Snaith renders the terms in Ecclesiasticus as "loathsome and lawless deeds."(9) It is important to note the event referred to by the author in 49:2.The setting is 2 Kings 23:1-13, where the terms for "abolished" (vv.5, 1 1) and "abomination" (v. 13) occur. In these verses josiah, withwhom Jeremiah was a contemporary, is credited with defiling the abominable high places of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom (v. 13), and ending the idolatrous priests and other idols (vv. 5, 11). Yet thesignificant statement is Josiah's being credited with breaking down "the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house ofthe Lord, where the women were weaving hangings for the Asherah" (v. 7). This is a reference to religious prostitution between males and constitutes sodomy (cf. 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12). Moses forewarned of such practices in Deuteronomy 23:17-18. It is not unreasonable to assume that the writer of Ecclesiasticus had in mind this idolatrous, sexual vice when he used the term bdelugma in 49:2. Yet probably the most significant passage for this study is 10:13- 18. The author wrote of the judgment on pride: For pride begins with sin, and the man who clings to it will rain down abominations. For this reason, the Lord brings unheard-of calamities upon them, and overturns them utterly. The Lord tears down the thrones of rulers, and seats the humble-minded in their places.The Lord plucks up nations by the roots, and plants the lowly in their places.The Lord overturns heathen countries, and destroys them down to the foundations of the earth. He takes some of them away, and destroys them, and makes the memory of them cease from the earth. Pride was not created for men, nor fierce anger for those who are born of women. (10) The concepts here are similar to those in 16:8 ("whom he detested for their pride"). He wrote with sarcasm that on those who hold to pride, God will bring abominations (bdelugma). The first line of verse 13 enforces the interpretation of 16:8 that other sins are implicit in the passage. The second line of verse 13 is rendered by Box and Oesterley as, "And its source overfloweth with depravity." (11) The idea is that sin pours forth every form of depravity.(12) Another Greek manuscript reads, "And fornication is the source of both." Evidently the Hebrew term for "depravity" is used also in Ezekiel 16:27, 43, 58 ("lewdness"), and Judges 20:6, where the Levite accused the men of Gibeah of committing "a lewd act in Israel." They had desired a homosex- ual relationship. Other verbal connections with Old Testament contexts dealing with Sodom occur. In Ecclesiasticus 10:13 ("For pride begins with sin") the noun uperafania occurs. In verse 17 the verb ekaranen occurs ("He takes some of them away"). Both of these words and the passage as a whole support the idea that the author alluded to Ezekiel 16:49-50 with its judgment of Sodom: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance.... thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." The words "arrogance" and "removed" in the Septuagint are from the same Greek terms as employed in Ecclesiasticus 10:13 and 17. In Ezekiel 16:56-57 judah's sin is identified as this same pride (uperafania) in a verse linking Judah with Sodom: "As the name of your sister Sodom was not heard from your lips in your day of pride, before your wickedness was uncovered." Here in a context of harlotry, lewdness, and abominations (v. 58) judah's sin is also identified as "pride" just as Sodom's is identified in verse 49! The Greek uperafania (used in Ezekiel only in 7:20; 16:49, 56) translates the Hebrew lin@. In similar contexts it means "arrogance, cynical insensitivity to the needs of others, and presumption. It is both a disposition and a type of conduct (both of which are inextricably connected) .1113 The contexts of Ezekiel and Ecclesiasticus confirm this statement. In Ecclesiasticus 10:12 the meaning of pride is given: "The origin of pride is to forsake the Lord, man's heart revolting against his Maker." Here "origin" has the sense of "essence" (cf. 1:14). (14) Hence the essence of pride is revolt against God. Persistence in pride then increases the depravity (v. 13). Can there be any doubt that for this author "pride" includes conduct and disposition? Is this not an apt description of sodomy? The graphic portrayal of God's judgmentin10:12-18, coupled with the Greek terms employed, and their Hebrew counterparts,makes an allusion to the over throw of Sodom because of sodomy extremely probable. Even the translators suggest this as a possibility. (15) The writer of Ecclesiasticus appears to be faithful to the account of Genesis 19 via Ezekiel 16. For his own theological purpose he interprets the sin of Sodom as pride in 16:8, a pride that includes arrogant conduct and a violation of wisdom. For Bailey and Boswell to limit their discussion to Ecclesiasticus 16:8 is unfortunate. And forthem to limit the sin of Sodom to pride because of this passage is even more unfortunate. From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Mon Jan 4 14:07:50 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA13644; Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:07:50 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA16710; Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:07:46 -0500 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA15524; Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:07:38 -0500 Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA09414 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.3 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:07:30 -0600 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Intertestament HSex/2 Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:07:29 GMT Organization: FNAL Lines: 217 Distribution: world Message-Id: <1ia1thINN84f@fnnews.fnal.gov> Nntp-Posting-Host: espc3.fnal.gov WISDOM OF SOLOMON The Wisdom of Solomon is by an unknown author and is probably a composite work dated 50 B.C. to A.D. 10, or as late aS A.D. 40. The passage most frequently discussed regarding sodomy occurs in a list of vices in 14:23-26. The context deals with the origin and results of idolatry. For the author there is a deliberate connection between idolatry and sexual vice: "For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication" (14:12; cf. v. 27). Then follows the catalog of vices (14:23-27): For neither while they murder children in their rites nor celebrate secret mysteries, nor hold frenzied revels with alien laws do they keep their lives or marriages pure, but one man waylays another and kills him, or grieves him by adultery.And it is all a confusion of blood and murder, theft and fraud, depravity, faithlessness, discord, perjury, clamor at the good, forgetfulness of favors, defilement of souls, confusion of sex, irregularity in marriage, adultery, and indecency.For the worship of the unspeakable idols is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.(16) It is often claimed by "prohomosexual" interpreters that the meaning of the phrase "confusion of sex" (geneseos enallaga) is uncertain and should not be used to refer to homosexuality. The meaning is difficult to ascertain, primarily because the phrase ap parently occurs nowhere else in Greek literature. Research shows that geneseos is somewhat common in classical and biblical Greek and means "birth, origin, kind, family, existence, generation, geneal ogy." However, enallaga, while frequent in classical Greek ("interchange, change, variation"), occurs nowhere else in biblical canonical or noncanonical literature (although Aquila used it at Psalm 9:12 and Isaiah 66:4). Several cognates exist, one with a sex ual connotation, but only one cognate (enallak occurs in Scripture, and then only once (Gen. 48:14, "crossing"). (17) There may be some connection with evdiallaguenou ("changed" of sex), used by Aquila and Origen at 1 Kings 22:47 (Eng., 22:46). The reference is to a male cult prostitute. There is no Septuagintal text to translate the Hebrew of 1 Kings 22:47-50. The phrase seems similar to one found in Philo utilizing enallaga: "change of the works of nature," according to Winston. (18) He renders the phrase in 14:26 as "interchange of sex roles." He compares the phrase to "changed the order of nature" (Test. Naph. 3:4 discussed later) and to "women exchanged natural relations for unnatural" (Rom. 1:26, Niv). He notes that the preceding phrase in Wisdom 14:26, "defilement of souls," has a moral sense, and the following phrase, "irregularity in marriage," points to sensual excess, perhaps meaning "inordinate." It seems that the phrase means "interchange, change of kind or sex." Bailey argues that it could mean anything from "changing of race" (a reference to Jewish apostasy) to self-castration, effeminacy, mixed marriages, homosexuality, or cultic transvestism. He argues that "there seems no reason to suppose that it has any special reference to homosexual acts."(19) Yet Bailey seems to deal inadequately with the context. The Wisdom of Solomon clearly refers to Sodom on two other occasions (10:6-9; 19:13-17), making a reference to sodomy in 14:26 possible. Also the immediate context refers to immoral sexual practices. The list in 14:23-26 is a catalog of vices-a literary device occurring in both Testaments (e.g., Jer. 7:9; Rom. 1:29-31) and in other Jewish, Christian, and pagan literature. (20) Homosexuality is often found in such catalogs. Also the majority of translators and commentaries translate the phrase in a way that allows a homosexual meaning. In Wisdom 19:13-17 Sodom is not explicitly cited but is clearly referred to. (21) The passage reads: And upon the sinners came the punishments not without tokens given beforehand by the force of thunders; for justly did they suffer through their own exceeding wickedness, for grievous indeed was the hatred which they practiced toward guests. For whereas certain men received not strangers who came among them, these made slaves of guests who were their benefactors. And not only so, but God shall visit the former after another sort, since they received as enemies them that were aliens; whereas these first welcomed with feastings, and then afflicted with dreadful toils, them that had already shared with them in the same rights. And they too were stricken with loss of sight (even as those others at the righteous man's doors), when, being compassed about with yawning darkness, they sought every one the passage through his own door.(22) Here comparison is being made between the reception given by the Sodomites and the more bitter hatred of strangers exhibited by the Egyptians in their treatment of Israel. Strong terms ("sinners," wickedness," etc.) describe the Egyptians and their behavior. It is hardly legitimate to infer front this passage that the behavior of the Sodomites was merely inhospitable. The contrast being made in the passage is not between the kinds of sins involved or their severity. Rather the contrast is between the recipients of the harsh treatment: Egypt persecuted guests and benefactors. At least the Sodomites did not "add fickleness to their crimes."(23) Sodom persecuted aliens and strangers. The judgment of blindness recorded of both (19:17) heightens the perversity of both Egypt and Sodom (Gen. 19:11). One other passage in Wisdom clearly refers to Sodom and its sins. In the context (10:1-14) the author illustrated the saving and punishing power of Wisdom by describing seven righteous heroes and their wicked counterparts, including Lot and the Sodomites.(24) None of them is named, in keeping with the author's style. The passage (10:6-9) describes Wisdom's deliverance of Lot from Sodom and the latter's destruction: It was she who rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing, and he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities, which were turned into a smoking waste as a testimony of their wickedness; with plants that bear fruit before they ripen, and a pillar of salt standing there as a memorial of an unbelieving soul. For having passed Wisdom by, they were not only distracted from a knowledge of the good, but also left behind for the world a monument of their folly, so that they were unable to go undetected in their failure. But Wisdom rescued her servants from troubles. (25) The Five Cities in 10:6 are those five cities of the plain named in Genesis (10:19; 14:2), including Sodom and Gomorrah. (26) The reference to unripened fruit as a witness to Sodom's "wickedness" finds its counterpart in Scripture (Deut. 32:32), Josephus, Tacitus, and throughout history.(27) The passage describes the Sodomites by various terms, including "ungodly" (asebon) and "wickedness" (ponaria). In Wisdom 10:8-9, which forms a unit marked off from the preceding and the following, the penalty for ignoring God and wisdom is given, followed by the benefit to righteous men. The "folly" is afrosunas., and "in their failure" is esfalasen ("to slip, stumble, fall"; rendered "enormities" by one writer).(28) It is clear that Wisdom of Solomon did not limit Sodom's sin to inhospitality. In fact its writer never used the term "inhospitable" to describe Sodom. It may characterize such a passage as 19:13-17, but the indictment of Sodom should not be limited to it. The phrase "confusion of sex" (or "interchange of sex roles") in 14:26 shows the author's acquaintance with sexual perversion, probably in the form of homosexuality in light of 10:6-9. For "prohomosexual" inter preters such as Bailey and Boswell to limit the sin of Sodom to in hospitality is unwarranted in light of the total witness of Wisdom. Their failure to discuss all the passages, or to quote them com pletely, is unfortunate and significantly distorts the witness. The Pseudepigrapha The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha has even clearer references to sodomy and Sodom than those found in the Apocrypha. All such references are here brought together, but because of the limitations of this article, discussion will be kept to a minimum. The passages speak for themselves.(29) 2 ENOCH Also known as Slavonic Enoch, this book (dated as early as 100 B.C. but probably best assigned to the turn of the era3o) describes at 10:4-5a the place of torture between the third and fourth heavens. The longer recensions (P, J) read: This place, Enoch, has been prepared for those who do not glorify God, who practice on the earth the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom, of witchcraft, enchantments, divinations, insulting, coveting, resentment, fornication, murder-and who steal the souls taking away their possessions. The shorter recension (A) has: This place, youth, has been prepared for those who practice godless uncleanness on the earth, who perform witchcraft and enchantments, and who boast about their deeds. They steal souls secretly; who untie the yoke that has been secured; who enrich themselves by fraud from the possessions of others.(31) It is clear that the words of the longer recensions, which so explicitly refer to Sodom and sodomy, find their counterpart in the words of the shorter recension, "who practice godless uncleanness on the earth." These words are clearly parallel to Jubilees 16:5-9, in which the men of Sodom are described as those who "work uncleanness on the earth" (discussed later). When these words are compared to the longer recensions the nature of the sin is made clear. In 2 Enoch 34:1-3 (j) there are additional references to sodomy.God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason He brings down the flood upon them. For I know the wickedness of mankind, how they have rejected my commandments and they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke, and they will accept a different yoke. And they will sow worthless seed, not fearing god and not wor shiping me, but they began to worship vain gods, and they renounced my uniqueness. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniq uities and wickednesses and abominable fornications, that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report, and the worship of (the) evil (one). And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and I shall de stroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness. The shorter recension (A) again omits the references to sodomy: I know the wickedness of mankind, how they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. Nor do they sow the seed which I have given them; but they have renounced my yoke, and they will take on another yoke; and they will sow worthless seed, and do obeisance to vain gods. And they will reject my sole rule. And all the world will sin by injustices and crimes and adulteries and idolatries. Then I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and the earth itself will be overwfielmed by a great quantity of mud.(32) Several summary observations about these passages in 2 Enoch can be made. First, in 10:4-5 the reference seems primarily focused on pederasty, whereas adult sodomy is the concern of 34:1-3. In 10:4 (P,J) the words "the sin which is against nature" remind one of Paul's condemnation of sodomy (Rom. 1). In addition, sodomy and idolatry are connected, as in Romans 1 and Wisdom 14:12. "A binding yoke" in 10:5 (A) and in 34:1 (both recensions) probably has a sexual connotation (33) and perhaps refers to sodomy. The connection with idolatry (34:1) supports this. It seems that euphemism or other obscurity is employed so as not to offend sensibilities. The phrase "reduced to confusion" (34:2, J) supports the reference to sodomy in Wisdom of Solomon 14:12 ("the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication," cf. 14:27). The words "who boast about their evil deeds" (2 Enoch 10:4-5 in both recensions) seem to reflect the meaning of "pride" (hperafania) discussed above as the sin of Sodom given in Ecclesiasticus 10:13; 16:8; and Ezekiel 16:49, 56. In 2 Enoch 34:1-3 (both recensions) the sins (including sodomy) are viewed as universal before the Flood and the cause for the Flood. 3 MACCABEES This historical romance (100 B.C.) refers to Sodom and its crimes in 2:5 between references to the giants of the Flood and Pharaoh. It says, "When the inhabitants of Sodom acted insolently and became notorious for their crimes you burned them up with fire and brimstone and made them an example to later generations."(34) The terms used to describe Sodom's sins, "acted insolently," "became notorious," and "crimes," are wholly consistent with the sin of Sodom elsewhere designated as "pride," as discussed earlier. Indeed in 2:3 all three examples (giants, Sodomites, Pharaoh) are indicted as those who "act insolently and arrogantly." Most significantly, the words used of Sodom ("acted insolently") translate the Greek terms uperafania ergakomenos. The former is the very word for "pride" in Ecclesiasticus and Ezekiel. God's dealing with Sodom is viewed as having universal significance. NEXT: JUBILEES From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Wed Jan 6 08:04:12 1993 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA14483; Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:04:12 EST Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:04:09 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Subject: Intertestament & HS/3 Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: espc3.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:04:00 GMT Lines: 244 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov JUBILEES This midrashic rewriting of biblical history (about 105 B.C.; or as early as 160 B.C.) records the cause for Sodom's destruction in 16:5-6. And in that month the Lord executed the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah and Zeboim and all of the district of the Jordan. And he burned them with fire and sulphur and he annihilated them till this day just as (he said), "Behold, I have made known to you all of their deeds that (they were) cruel and great sinners and they were polluting them selves and they were fornicating in their flesh and they were causing pollution upon the earth." And thus the Lord will execute judgment like the judgment of Sodom on places where they act according to the pollution of Sodom. (35) In 16:7-9 the sins of Lot and his daughters are described. Lot's seed would undergo judgment "just like the judgment of Sodom" (16:9). This is the fourth mention of Sodom. The five phrases used to describe Sodom's sin are appropriate to homosexuality. R.H. Charles renders Wintermute's "causing pollution upon the earth" as "work uncleanness on the earth." This parallels the phrase in 2 Enoch 10:4-5a (shorter recension), "practice god less uncleanness on the earth." The longer recension of Enoch elabo rates the phrase as sodomy in explicit terms. The terminology argues for the dependency of 2 Enoch on jubilees, or that both draw on a common tradition. Jubilees 13:17 includes another reference to Sodom: "And in the fourth year of this week Lot parted from him, and Lot dwelt in Sodom, and the men of Sodom were sinners exceedingly." In Jubilees 20:5 it is written of Abraham and his children: "And he told them the judgment of the giants and the judgments of the Sodomites just as they had been judged on account of their evil. And on account of their fornication and impurity and the corruption among themselves with fornication they died.(36) In 20:6 Abraham warns that they not be cursed like Sodom and Gomorrah. Here the five phrases describing Sodom's sins are similar to those in 16:5-6, with "corruption among themselves" perhaps even more suggestive of homosexuality. The giants and Sodomites are linked here as both culpable for such sins. When these phrases are compared with those in the following passage (7:20-21) describing the sins of the giants, the reference to inordinate sexual practice seems even more convincing. Indeed, a reference to bestiality ("they sinned against beasts") seems to occur in 7:24 and reminds one of the same connection with sodomy in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. These are the words in jubilees 7:20-21: And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to command his grand- sons with ordinances and commandments and all of the judgments which he knew. And he bore witness to his sons so that they might do justice and cover the shame of their flesh and bless the one who created them and honor father and mother, and each one love his neighbor and preserve themselves from fornication and pollution and from all injustice. For on account of these three the Flood came upon the earth. For (it was) because of the fornication which the Watchers, apart from the mandate of their authority, fornicated with the daughters of men and took for themselves wives from all whom they chose and made a beginning of impurity. (37) 4 EZRA Three brief references to Sodom occur in 4 Ezra, self-designated 2 Esdras (so the Av and RSV). The original, middle section was composed about A.D. 100, with chapters 1-2, 15-16 added later. In 2:8-9 the unrighteous people of Assyria are warned to remember what God "did to Sodom and Gomorrah, whose land lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes." In 5:7 a sign of future judgment is that "the sea of Sodom shall cast up fish." In 7:106 Ezra, when told that prayers are ineffective on the day of judgment, asked, "How then do we find that first Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom?" The motif of being reduced to ashes (4 Ezra 2:8-9) has a variant reading: "it has sunk right down to hell.(38) Both thoughts occur in the New Testament, and Sodom is in the context in each case (Matt. 11:23-24, "descend to Hades"; Luke 17:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7). TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs purport to be the last words of each of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gen. 49). The work is variously dated, from as early as 150 B.C. to 40 B.C., with several additions from the Christian era (39) The following are all the references to Sodom or sodomy found in the Testaments. In the Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5 and 4:1 the sin of Sodom is described as "changed the order of nature" and "wickedness," and is linked to the sin of the Watchers (angels) at the Flood-an association made in Jubilees 20:5. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature. In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless. These things I say unto you, my children, for I have read in the writ- ing of Enoch that ye yourselves also shall depart from the Lord, walking according to all the lawlessness of the Gentiles, and ye shall do accord- ing to all the wickedness of Sodom. Here for the first time the sin of Sodom is said to have "changed the order of nature" (cf. Rom. 1). In 4:1 this is summarized in the general term "wickedness." Bailey and others believe this passage and those from Jubilees to be the sources of the "Christian interpretation of the Sodom story." Bailey believes that Jubilees departs from "the general tradition of Scripture" both in stressing the sexual nature of Sodom's sin and in linking it with the Watcher story and the Flood. Bailey faults the Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5 for making Sodom's sin homosexuality rather than heterosexuality. (40) These claims will be evaluated later. In the Testament of Asher 7:1 the Sodomites for the first time are said to have sinned against angels. The verse reads, "Become not, my children, as Sodom, which sinned against the angels of the Lord, and perished for ever." Interestingly 6:2 (cf. 2:3; 3:2) speaks about those who "both do the evil thing and they have pleasure in them that do it." This reminds one of Paul's words in Romans 1:32, also in a context of homosexuality. The Testament of Benjamin 9:1 reads as follows: "And I believe that there will be also evil-doings among you, from the words of Enoch the righteous: that ye shall commit fornication with the for- nication of Sodom, and shall perish, all save a few, and shall renew wanton deeds with women." The last clause may allude to the outrage at Gibeah where the Benjamites attempted the sodomy of a Levite but had to settle for the rape and murder of his concubine (Judg. 19-20).(41) The Testament of Levi 14:6 prophesies that future, apostate Israel would take Gentile women as wives, "purifying them with an unlawful purification; and your union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah." Kee renders the last clause as, "your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah." In 17:11 occurs the only use, apparently, of the term "pederast" (paidofthoros) in the intertestamental literature. The passage prophesies the corruption of Jewish priests: "In the seventh week there will come priests: idolators, adulterers, money lovers, arrogant, lawless, voluptuaries, pederasts, those who practice bestiality." Interestingly the terms "arrogant" and "bestiality" occur here also. In 17:8 the author wrote that there will be "pollution such as I am unable to declare in the presence of human beings, because only the ones who do these things understand such matters." This too perhaps refers to sodomy. Many of the Testaments refer to the "abominations of the Gen- tiles" and the like (Testaments of Judah 23:1-4; Issachar 6:1-2; Zebu- lun 9:5-6; Dan 5:5, 8; Gad 8:2; Simeon 5:4; Levi 10:1-3; Reuben 5:6-7; 6:8). It seems that references to sodomy are implicit in many of the Testaments. THE LETTER OF ARISTFAS This letter, purportedly explaining the origin of the Septuagint, is dated probably about 170 B.C., if not earlier (250 B.C.).(42) The reference to sodomy occurs in verse 152. The passage reads (15lb-152): This moreover explains why we are distinct from all other men. The majority of other men defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a serious offense, and lands and whole cities take pride in it: they not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters. We are quite separated from these practices.43 The clause, "they not only procure the males," is translated by Andrews as, "they not only have intercourse with men." The context makes clear that sodomy is meant by the Greek term (proagw). The passage probably alludes to Leviticus 18 and 20, in which sexual vices, including sodomy and incest, are condemned. Scroggs believes that the passage is a reaction to pagan Greek pederasty and refers to this practice, not to adult sodomy-44 Yet the letter makes no use of terminology for pederasty, and it identifies the vice as "men" with "males." The terminology is influenced by the Old Testament, not Greek practices. 42. See R.J.H. Shutt, "Letter of Aristeas," The Old Testainetit Pseudepigrapha, 2:7-9; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 47-50; and Herbert T. Andrews, "The Letter of Aristeas," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:87. Some of these support an earlier date (250-200 B.C.) or a date as late as the first century A.D. 43. The translation is from Shutt, "Letter of Aristeas," 2:23. 44. Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97. Liddell and Scott cite a cognate (proagogeno) meaning "pander, pimp, procuress" (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1466). A variant (prosago) of the term used in 152 can mean to act toward a woman "in an effeminate manner, procure," etc. (ibid., pp. 1499-50). Summary and Conclusions "Prohomosexual" interpreters, such as Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs, make several claims regarding the relationship of the in tertestamental literature to the canonical Scriptures on the issue of homosexuality. These were briefly mentioned in the introduction. The claim that Sodom is associated only with pride or inhospitality in the Apocrypha has been shown to be false. The full meaning of "pride" or "arrogance" and the use of such terms as "abominations," "sins," "ungodly," "wickedness," "folly," "failure," and "confusion of sex" in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon argue against the "prohomosexual" view. The failure of this view to consider all the pertinent passages where Sodom or sodomy is explicit or implicit contributes to the gravity of the misinterpretation. The claim that the Pseudepigrapha, particularly Jubilees and the Testament of Naphtali, associate sexual sin, and particularly sodomy, with Sodom for the first time has been shown to be false. The association is implicit in the Apocrypha, as demonstrated in this article. The sexual, homosexual meaning originates in Genesis 19 itself. Also terminology in both the Apocrypha and Pseude pigrapha is sufficiently similar to support a unified witness throughout the intertestamental period. It is true that the Testament of Naphtali uses unique, explicit terms such as "changed the order of nature," but these words are a le gitimate interpretation if the Old Testament narrative (Gen. 19) means sodomy. Jubilees is not any more explicit than Ecclesiasticus. Indeed 2 Enoch is the most explicit of all (in its longer recensions), with certain Testaments and the Letter of Aristeas being quite explicit as well. These observations seem valid whatever the dating and interdependency of these books may be. The claim that Jewish reaction to Greek pederasty influenced the Pseudepigrapha to associate (wrongfully) sodomy with Sodom is false. Only in one place does the term meaning "pederasty" occur (Test. Levi 17:11), and there is no link with Sodom. By contrast, Philo used several terms for pederasty. Indeed, perversion of adults with adults is assumed virtually everywhere (even 2 Enoch 34:1-3 balances the reference to "child corruption" in 10:4-5). Old Testament terminology, including euphemism (beginning with "know" in Genesis 19 and Judges 19), influenced the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as one would expect (e.g., in the use of "abominations," "pride," etc.). The claim that the Pseudepigraphal books of Jubilees and Testament of Naphtali influenced 2 Peter and Jude to associate (wrongfully) sodomy with Sodom is false. These New Testament claim that Jewish reaction to Greek pederasty influenced the Pseudepigrapha to associate (wrongfully) sodomy with Sodom is false.Only in one place does the term meaning "pederasty" occur (Test. Levi 17:11), and there is no link with Sodom. By contrast, Philo used several terms for pederasty. Indeed, perversion of adults with adults is assumed virtually everywhere (even 2 Enoch 34:1-3 balances the reference to "child corruption" in 10:4-5). Old Testament terminology, including euphemism (beginning with "know" in Genesis 19 and Judges 19), influenced the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as one would expect (e.g., in the use of "abominations," "pride," et books should be viewed as part of a stream of tradition regarding the sins of Sodom which began in the Old Testament itself. These writers used terminology consistent with the Old Testament: "lawless deeds," "ungodly," "sensual conduct," "fornication." Even a study comparing the series of judgments found in 2 Peter and Jude with those in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha argues against any certain dependence. Peter and Jude have a different order of judgments; Peter omits entirely a reference to Pharaoh; jude puts events of the wilderness first (out of chronological order, con trary, it seems, to the intertestamental books); and neither makes reference to giants before the Flood (angels take their place). Those who wish to use the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to eradicate sodomy from passages of the Old Testament or to eradicate condemnation of it where it cannot be denied (Lev. 18; 20) are propos ingan extreme interpretation. It is so radical in its tenets, so serious in its consequences for ethics, so contrary to a reasonable interpreta tion, that it may be properly termed "revisionist" in a sense not unlike revisionist interpretations of recent history. From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Wed Jan 6 08:07:55 1993 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA14960; Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:07:55 EST Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:07:53 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Subject: Intertestament footnotes Message-Id: <#0W_QW7UU@linac.fnal.gov> Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: espc3.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:07:45 GMT Lines: 179 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov 1. D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955), p. IO (see also pp. 6-8, 27-28). 2. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 94, n. 7, and pp. 108-1 1. 3. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), chaps. 5, 6, esp. pp. 67, 83-84, 97-98. 4. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, p. 94, n. 7. 5. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), p. 252. 6. Even the English word "pride" denotes this. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1971), p. 1799. An obsolete meaning is "sexual desire." Also see The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Glasgow: Oxford University, 1971), 2:2297. 7. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 848-49. Paul placed the adjective uperafanos between ubristas and dAdCtov in a list of vices (Rom. 1:30), where the arrogant despisers of others stand conceptually between the violently insolent and the empty boasters. The noun occurs in the New Testament only in the list of vices in Mark 7:22. See the Theological Dictionary of the Nezo Testament, s.v. "uperafavos, uperafania," by Georg Bertram, 8:525-29. 8. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, p. 321. 9. John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of lestis Son of Sirach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), p. 244. For Old Testament usage of these and other terms see James B. DeYoung, "The Old Testament Witness to Homosexuality: A Critical Assessment of the Prohomosexual Interpretation of the Old Testament," paper presented to the Northwest Section, Evangelical Theological Society, May 4, 1985, Port- land, OR. 10. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, pp. 241-42. 11. G. H. Box and W. 0. E. Oesterley, "The Book of Sirach," in The Apocryplia and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 1:350. 12. Snaith renders the second line of 1O:13 as,"so persistence in it brings on a deluge of depravity" (Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, p. 54). 13. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Workbook of the, Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), s.v. by Victor P. Hamilton, 1:143. 14. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, p. 56. So also Edward Lee Beavin, "Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach," The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Layman (New York: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 557. 15. "in 16b ('extirpateth them,' etc.) there may be an allusion to Sodom. Cp. Ezek. xvi. 49" (Box and Oesterley, "The Book of Sirach," 1:350, n. 16). 16. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, pp. 206-7. Samuel Holmes also renders the key phrase as "confusion of sex" ("The Wisdom of Solomon," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1:559). The RSV reads "confusion over what is good." "Abuse of sex" is the rendering of Edwin Cone Bissell (The Apocrypha of the Old Testament [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 18801, p. 262]. He cites the KJV's "changing of kind" (marg. "sex). 17. See H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, comps., A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H.S. Jones, 9th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940), pp. 343, 554, 1288; Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Nezt7 Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pp. 154, 261; William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p.352. 18. David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1979), p. 26. Ernest G. Clarke renders the phrase of 14:26 as "sexual perversion" (The Wisdom of Solomon [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], p.97) He cites a similar list of immoralities in Hosea 4:2. In Hosea 4:14 Aquila renderd "shrine prostitute" by the term "endiallagmenou" "changes" (of sex). 19. Bailey, Homosextitility and the Western Christian Trtiditioiz, p. 48. Scroggs thinks the passage refers to homosexuality, but that the text "puts no particular weight on homosexuality, or any other specific sin" (The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 92). This seems to be beside the point. 20. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, p. 280. 21. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon characteristically avoids the use of proper names, but no one doubts the reference to Sodom here. See Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 37, 127, and the extended discussion of this phenomenon in Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 139-40. 22. Holmes, "Wisdom of Solomon," 1:567. Due to textual variations in 19:15 it may be rendered otherwise. Goodspeed has, "And not only so, but those others shall have some consideration, for the men they received with such hostility were aliens" (The Apocrypha, p. 219). Yet Holmes believes that it is unjustified to weaken the word episkopa to "consideration, allowance." He points out that this is the "only certain reference in this part of the book to future retribution" (The Wisdom of Soloinoii, p. 567, n. 15). 23. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solo@noll, p. 128. 24. Winston, The Wisdo@n of Solomon, p. 211. 25. The translation is that of Winston. 26. These same five cities from Genesis 14 are found listed in the same order in an Ebla tablet, dated about 2500 B.C. See Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, p. 215. 27. See references in Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon pp. 215-16. 28. Clark, The Wisdom of Solomon, on 10:8. 29. The author of this article is unaware of any other one source where all these passages pertinent to homosexuality are quoted or discussed. 30. Francis I. Andersen, "2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in The Old Testatment Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1983), 1:97. 31. Ibid., pp. 118-19. The translation of both recensions is Andersen's. He seems to favor the longer recensions as genuine. 32. The translations are those of Andersen (ibid., pp. 158-59). 33. So Andersen comments to this effect (ibid., pp. 119,158). 34. H. Anderson, "3 Maccabees," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:518-19. See also Cyril W. Emmet, trans., "The Third Book of Maccabees," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1:164. Anderson puts the date in the early first century B.C. 35. S. Wintermute, "Jubilees," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:88. He dates jubilees between 161 and 140 B.C. (p. 44). R. H. Charles dates it 109-105 B.C. in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 2:6. His translation uses "wicked" for "cruel," "defile themselves" for "polluting themselves," and "work uncleanness" for "causing pollution" (ibid., 2:37). 36. Wintermute, "Jubilees," 2:94. 37. lbid., 2:69-70. 38. Jacob M. Myers, I and 11 Esdras, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1974), pp. 144, 150. The translations of 4 Ezra are from Bruce M. Metzger, "The Fourth Book of Ezra," The Old Testaineiit Pseudepigrapha, 1:526, 532, 541. 39. R. H. Charles dates it 109-40 B.C. ("The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:282, 289-90). H. C. Kee dates it as early as 150 B.C. ("Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:777-78). A minor view puts it in the late second century and early third century A.D. (M. Dejonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Assen: Van Gorcum & Co., 19751, pp. 127-28). The translations of the Testaments are from Charles. 40. Bailey, Homosexuality atid the Western Christian Tradition, pp. 12-18. See also pp. 27-28. 41. Bailey rejects a homosexual interpretation of the sin at Gibeah (ibid.) 42. See R.J.H. Shutt, "Letter of Aristeas," The Old Testainetit Pseudepigrapha, 2:7-9; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 47-50; and Herbert T. Andrews, "The Letter of Aristeas," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:87. Some of these support an earlier date (250-200 B.C.) or a date as late as the first century A.D. 43. The translation is from Shutt, "Letter of Aristeas," 2:23. 44. Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97. Liddell and Scott cite a cognate (proagogeno) meaning "pander, pimp, procuress" (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1466). A variant (prosago) of the term used in 152 can mean to act toward a woman "in an effeminate manner, procure," etc. (ibid., pp. 1499-50). From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Mon May 17 08:46:06 1993 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA25668; Mon, 17 May 93 08:46:06 EDT Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Mon, 17 May 1993 07:46:01 -0500 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov Subject: ARSENOKOITAI 2 -Bailey/Boswell Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: adnetest.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL/AD/Net Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 12:45:52 GMT Lines: 184 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov [continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-] SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI D.S. Bailey D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning of arsenokoitai. He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who engage passively in such acts.*4 However, he insists that Paul knew nothing of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual practice as evidence of perversion" (38). Hence Bailey limits the term's reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the term as "homosexuals." Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual *condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in source]. Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation "sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39). Bailey clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers. J. Boswell The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is that of John Boswell.*5 Whereas the usual translation*6 of this term gives it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive sense. In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes." His argument is that the arseno- part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to base sexual activity. Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male sexual person or male prostitute. He acknowledges, however, that most interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make their bed with, men." Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the historical setting. He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes ("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance. His point is that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning. More directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective (343). Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-. Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti. These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects. The Greek arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci; the corresponding passive would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms. He claims that arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed fornication."*7 In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of Paul" (346).*8 He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus Empiricus, and Libanius. He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions of homosexual relation" (346)*9 among Christian sources in Greek, including the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10 Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom is singled out for his omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11 Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12 Cited are Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. The last named uses "circumlocutions." Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius Felix. The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation. By the sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife (353). Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes, There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every reason to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353). It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male prostitutes. He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not disapprove of "gay inclination," "gay relationships," "enduring love between persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism" (112, 166-17). ________________________________________________________ 4. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 5. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). 6. Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here. 10.. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1." 11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1, or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351) that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai. 12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the Greek" (348 n.36). footnotes: _______________________ 5. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 6. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here. 10. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1." 11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1, or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351) that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai. 12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the Greek" (348 n.36). Next: R. Scroggs From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Wed May 19 08:47:38 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA20746; Wed, 19 May 93 08:47:38 EDT Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA04814; Wed, 19 May 93 08:47:30 -0400 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26955; Wed, 19 May 93 08:47:29 -0400 Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA03564 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.3 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Wed, 19 May 1993 07:47:24 -0500 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: usenet From: REXLEX@fnal.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: Scroggs (#3) Date: 19 May 1993 12:47:23 GMT Organization: FNAL/AD/Net Lines: 199 Distribution: world Message-Id: <1tda8r$2k3@fnnews.fnal.gov> Nntp-Posting-Host: adnetest.fnal.gov [cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3] R. Scroggs Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and suggested a new twist to the word. Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a "Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic terminology." The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male"). Yet he believes that Paul did not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14). It was invented to avoid "contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108). If this is true, Scroggs observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it. It was meaningless to native-speaking Greeks (108). Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion" (107). Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a male" to have a very narrow reference. With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9), which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108). Hence arsenokoitai does not refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic model of pederasty. It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he affirms (109). This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also. The combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them]" (120). It again refers to that specific form of pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121). Even "serious minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty. He then uses these instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1. Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122). We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122). In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul. The form and function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped. Any relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually nonexistent. He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in the lists" (104). Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices," Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are "irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129). The "model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of ordination. . . " (127). REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI D. Wright In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have come under closer scrutiny. Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's view is that by David Wright. In his thorough article, Wright points out several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai. He faults Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic Constitutions," Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28). Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with a male," making arseno- the object. Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell claims that compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference between the two forms" (131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its gender" (132). It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources. For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis, androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion. Boswell fails to cite Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the Syriac writer Bardensanes. The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34). Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134). Sometimes this parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia ("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris (136). Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43). Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73. It may be, Wright observes, that the word was coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38). Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John the Faster (d. 595) (139-40). The last in particular bears the idea of homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell. Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted (140-41). Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g. Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41). Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention (141-44). Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom, omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue. Chrysostom gives a long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom 1:26. Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term. Wright observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual activity" (144). It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim and I Cor. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning "homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of the word (144-45). None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited conclusion based on them. Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the catalogues of vices as a literary form. He believes that such lists developed in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Greek world. This paralleled the increased concern on the part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence. The term came into being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual engagement with paides" (146). If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146). In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning homosexuality and arises with Judaism. The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without significant support from linguistic and historical studies. [Next: the questioning of Wrights position by William Peterson. After that, we get into the "good" stuff of historical & linguistic studies. THis will include "Symposium" by Plato. If there is any doubt as to the modern understanding of homosexuality being understood or contemmplated at the time of Paul, this will certainly clear things up. Also we will review Paul's use of Lev18-20 in the NT and how, as for him, 1) the Law was fulfilled, but not done away with, 2) Lev 18-20 was the universal and the following chapters the general. Those who put forth that the OT no longer holds true today in our culture, should stick around for this one.] ___________________________ 13 R. Scroggs, THe New Testament and Homosexuality (Phil: 1983) 86, 107-8. Independently we came to the same conclusion. Apparently the connection is made in E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Periods (from 146BC to AD 1100). 14 See discussion, 101-4. He says the same thing about Paul's language in Rom 1:26-27 (128). But this is doubtful. See the more cautious words of P. Zaas, "I Cor 6.9ff: Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church? SBLASP 17 (1979):205-12. He observes that the words moixai, malakoi, and arsenokoitai were part of Jewish anti-Gentile polemic. Yet Paul's wors at the end of the vice list, "and such were some of you," indicate that "Paul is addressing real or potential abuses of his ethical message, not citing primitive tradition by rote" (210). Wright disputes Zaas' attempt to associate the term with idolatry (147). 15 On Boswell's treatment of Rom 1:26-7, the article by R.B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural" A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," JRE 14/1 (Spring 1986): 184-215, is an excellent critique. 16 D.F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (I Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), VC 38 (1984):125-53. 17 In an unpublished paper, Henry Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI: Boswell on Paul," effectively refutres Boswell's claims regarding the philology of arsenokoitai. He finds the meaning to be general, "a male who has sex with a male" (4-11). 18 Wright's endnotes (148-49) list additional sources in the church fathers. 19 We also have noticed the same tendency by Boswell to fail to cite all the references to Sodom and sodomy in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. See J.B. DeYoung, "A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," BSac 146/588 (1990):437-53. 20 In light of the claim made by Boswell that the infrequency of arsenokoitai points to a meaning lacking homosexual significance, Wright asks pertinently "why neither Philo nor Josephus use paidofthoria, nor Josephus paiderastia, and why . . Clement did not use the latter and Chrysostom the former?" (152 n. 71) In a more recent article, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," EvQ 61 (1989):291-300, Wright reiterates these same points. Paul shows a "remarkable originality" in extending the OT ethic to the church (300). From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Fri May 21 13:12:30 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA05271; Fri, 21 May 93 13:12:30 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA26826; Fri, 21 May 93 13:12:28 -0400 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04812; Fri, 21 May 93 13:12:26 -0400 Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA09214 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.3 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Fri, 21 May 1993 12:12:24 -0500 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: usenet From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: #4 Date: 21 May 1993 17:12:23 GMT Organization: FNAL Lines: 261 Distribution: world Message-Id: <1tj2hn$8v3@fnnews.fnal.gov> References: Nntp-Posting-Host: adnetest.fnal.gov continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission, THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY James B. DeYoung W. Petersen More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a different direction. In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of arsenokoitai.[22] He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10. In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey. He finds "homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic. "A major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88). What is this "disjunction"? He bases it on historical and linguistic facts. Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in describing these actions. Ancient society know nothing of the categories of "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23] In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual" to desire and propensity. K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189). Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary," which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no mention of acts. Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history "where no equivalent concept existed" (189). Consequently the translation is inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes female homosexuals" (19=89). Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure, either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189). The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio "homosexual" is mistaken. Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds? The next phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS" Historical Grounds A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence. Since virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available. Yet much writing reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary with Paul. The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to present-day concepts. Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be part of the definition of the term. They assert this either because the term is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient times (Bailey; Petersen). The following discussion will show why neither of these positions is legitimate. Attention will be devoted to the latter postion first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds." In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the homosexual condition exist before 1869? Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex orientation or condition. Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in "Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient ingnorance of this condition. He discounts this, however, believing that even here "acts appear to be the deciding factor." However, this is a very significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition. THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24] Plato posits a third sex comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature" palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings. Zeus sliced these human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the gods. Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the opposite sex or one of the same sex. Plato then quotes Aristophances: Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex, whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses. All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men: they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions. Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be clasped in men's embrasces; these are the finest boys and striplings, for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other's side for a single moment. These are they who continue together throughout life, though they could not even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25] Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all the time: (192e). Several observations about this text are in order. Lesbianism is contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e). "Natural interest" (ton noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: (paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to be born this," i.e., as homosexual. The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is present. Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present. Further mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty, homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is recognizable. Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from actions. THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is crucial; money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e). There are tow kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion" (186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c). Noteworthy is the speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is related to love and its objects (200a-201c). Desire is felt for "what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack." This is the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e). This ancient philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of being or nature. His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26] In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato. Petersen is in error when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not inclination or orientation. Widespread evidence to the contray supports the latter. [27] Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction. In Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor 6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt. 23:28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise to the other (cf. Mt 5:27). Petersen errs regarding other particulars too. Transvestism apparently was accepted by the ancients. It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian, people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28] Only a few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it. For example, Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman. Philo also goes to some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women (The Special Laws III, 37-41; see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he justifies prohibition of cross-dressing). Even the OT forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes (Deut 22:5). Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the "new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior. These did not begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu, Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29] Linguistic Grounds footnotes ___________________________ 22 W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor 6:9; I Tim 1:10)" VC 40 (1986): 187-91. 23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1. 24 We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's view. However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover (Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato: Symposioum LCL (Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143. Note the reference to "adulteress." If there is a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth. 26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; the latter should be outlawed (181d-e). Such love of youths is to be permanent (181d), lifelong and abiding (184a). Where homosexual love is considered a disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?). In Athens it was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression of "coming out of the closet"). Mutality was present ("this compels lover and beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b). For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position is inadequate and misrepresentative. It is a significant witness to Greek society hundreds of years before the time of Christ. 27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere. Philo writes of those who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws 3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63). Josephus says that homosexuality had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75) Clement of Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1) It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts). Pseudo Lucian (Erostes 48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it. Finally Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard which nature has set for your sex." Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers (Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual homosexual relationships, even marriages. Even emperors could be either gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says. Scroggs (Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have existed in the past. He discusses possible references to adult mutual homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44). 28 See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250. He observes that the prohibition of cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." See also Dover, Homosexuality 73-76, 144. 29 Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para phosin)(Laws 636a-b; 636c; 836a-c; 838; 841d-e). According to TEST.NAPH 3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature." THe Jewish writers, Philo (On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199; 2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature." Finally,, first century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of homosexuality as "against nature." Christians clearly did not invent the labels "natural" and "unnatural". See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41. From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Tue May 25 08:37:07 1993 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA20956; Tue, 25 May 93 08:37:07 EDT Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Tue, 25 May 1993 07:36:59 -0500 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: Linguistic (#5) Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: mauhdib.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL/AD/Net Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 12:36:43 GMT Lines: 172 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov [Again, this is printed with permission from Dr. James De Young of W. Conservative Baptist Sem, from the article "The Source and NT Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI, with Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry" as printed in The Masters Seminary Journal, Fall of '92, 191-215. --Rex] Linguistic Grounds The research of Wright and Mendell cited, as well as ancient writers documented above, shows that arsenokoitai is a broad term. It cannot be limited to pederasty or "active male prostitutes"; nor can it be limited to acts. It must also include same-sex orientation or condition. The main difficulty, however, with Petersen's study and that of others before him, lies in the area of linguistics or philology pertain to the modern term "homosexuals." Petersen has an erroneous concept of dictionaries and meaning when citing the incompatibility of the English and Greek terms. The preceding historical evidence demonstrates that ancient concepts of homosexuality, though primarily understood as sexual acts, cannot be limited to acts alone. It is plausible, then, that the term arsenokoitai may include both acts and orientation or desire -at least in the contexts of Rom 1, I Cor 6 and I Tim 1. Paul knew about the immorality in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus (note the similarity of Eph 4:17-24 and 5:3-12 with I Tim 1 and I Cor 6). A subsequent question arises: is the modern term "homosexual" limited to orientation or inclination, excluding acts or behavior? Petersen answers in the affirmative and cites as support both the creator of the word and the meaning he assigned to it, as well as the standard dictionary, Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. In n. 9 (190), however, Petersen acknowledges that Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) does include a reference to one who "practices homosexuality" and "same-sex sexual activity" after the definitions referring to inclination and preference. He dismisses this as a "popularized, perhaps Americanized usage," as "slang," and as a "corruption of the original meaning." He characterizes Webster's lexicographers as "ignorant of the psychological facts of the case, even though they may be correctly recording the use of the word in popular speech" (190). Yet Peterson has overlooked several important points or principles. The first one concerns lexicography. Once a word has entered the stream of society it is defined by its entire context -what the users mean by it, regardless of its original definition. Dictionaries reflect usage, including the changes in a word's meaning. It is apparent that popular and scholarly usage of "homosexuals" today has come to include "same-sex behavior"; indeed this may now be the more prominent definition. If this be so, in light of the breadth of meaning of arsenokoitai, "homosexuals" is a closer approximation of its meaning than believed by Bailey, Boswell, Petersen, and others. A second principle is that words are constantly changing in meaning. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged second ed., 1965) does not include "practice" under the definition of "homosexual" and uses only the words "sexual relations between individuals of the same sex" as the second definition of "homosexuality." Webster's definitions have changed in the span of just six years (compare the 3rd ed. cited above). For Petersen to restrict the meaning to an earlier one and to call the later definition a "corruption" is unfortunate. The meaning of a word may change by being deepened, by being given new value, by taking on a new meaning, or by being given a new concrete application. In the case of "homosexuals," it appears that several of these kinds of changes are occurring because of the increasingly frequent use of the word in different contexts ranging from popular speech to scholarly circles. A third principle is that words usually mark out a field of meaning. That is, words usually do not have a point of meaning, i.e., a very small area of meaning. The historical-cultural study above show that homosexuality -or whatever word describes it- existed in various forms including prostitution, pederasty, lesbianism, orientation, and mutuality. The Greeks and Romans employed scores of terms to describe such orientation and behavior. Therefore, it is plausible that such a term as arsenokoitai has a broad meaning when its etymology is simply "male-bed" or "lying with a male" assuming that the context does not restrict it to a narrower meaning. A fourth principle stems from the preceding. Since no two words have exactly the same area of meaning, no true synonyms exist within a language and no exact equivalents occur between languages. This allows arsenokoitai to be translated "homosexuals" even though it is somewhat imprecise to do so. Terms in two languages can never be exactly equivalent because their context can never be identical (given at least, the time span). They do not share the same area of meaning. It may well be that "sodomist" better represents the idea of arsenokoitai, since both terms in their moral and biblical settings represent contexts closer to one another. It may be that Benkert in 1869 misread or was unacquainted with the history of homosexuality in ancient times. He may have unwittingly altered the whole discussion of the subject by limiting his new term to the homosexual condition. Petersen asserts that translating arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" is anachronistic (the ancients had no concept equivalent to homosexual desire; the English term is limited to homosexual desire), but he is conclusively in error as the above historical-cultural evidence and linguistic principles show. Certain terms such as arrenomanes ("mad after males"), 4th c. A.D. show that there was a "cognitive structure" for the homosexual condition before 1869 (cf. I Cor 6:11, "and such were some of you"). The most that can be said for Petersen's position is that the ancients may not have had a term of exclusive sexual categories (whether a person is "homosexual" or "heterosexual"), whereas moderns do have one or at least may refer to one's primary attraction. Hence the contemporary concept of a homosexual may be slightly different from the ancients, who spoke only of what they considered to be a number of equal options. Yet some evidence indicates that "exclusively homosexual" persons were identifiable to the ancients (see n. 27 above). Both the Greek and English terms appear broad enough to cover such cases and cannot be limited to acts. Petersen has decidedly overstated the case for both the ancients and the modern era. Summary of Reactions to the New Interpretations It is improper to be prescriptive as to the meaning of arsenokoitai. It is better to descriptive. In surveying those who have written on the meaning of the term, Bailey Boswell and Scroggs have erred or have been incomplete when they, respectively, define the term as "perverts," "male sexual agents" or "active male prostitutes," and "pederasts." It is more credible that historical and cultural evidence supports the conclusion that the term is broad enough to include both the various forms of homosexual acts and the homosexual condition, inversion or orientation. The studies by Wright and others supply the linguistic evidence for the more general sense of "homosexuals." As to the assertion by Petersen that the English "homosexuals" should not be used to render arsenokoitai, it is evident that the English and the Greek words are sufficiently broad to make them fair and suitable equivalents. Because of usage in various historical and modern contexts, each must include both homosexual behavior and orientation or condition. NEXT: Support For the Pauline Origin of ARSENOKOITAI footnotes: ____________________ 30 The philological research byMendell, in particular, is comprehensive and convincing. He finds Boswell wrong on many points including his observations about the Latin exoleti (5); the prevalence of active male prostitution (6); the meaning of koitai as a coarse and active word (7); the meanings of compoounds of loit- (7-10); the prevalence of arsenokoitai in the church fathers (11-18); the law in Roman societ (13); the statements of Sextus about Greek law (13); and secular uses (18-19). In appendices Mendell devotes detailed examination to how compounds are formed, including those with koitas (25-28), and such comounds in astrological settings (28-29). Our own philological study confirms Mendell's observations. Mr. Tim Teebken assisted this writer in searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. THe search revealed thousands of occurrences of forms of koit-, mix-, and phthor-. Paiderast- occurs 200 times and androbatein ("practice unnatural vice"),ansromania ("mad after men") and arratourgia ("filthy lewdness") and arrntopoieo ("do unmentionable vice") occur only rarely. LSJ cites these and other words referring to "unnatural vice." 31 Petersen's refernce to the "psychological facts of the case" begs the question. If he is referring to Kinsey and other studies, the "facts" have been disputed. Many psychologists use "homosexual" to cover both orientation and behavior, and have seen many people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. These include such psychologists (who have published) as Bergler, Anna Freud, Haddon, Hatterer, Janov, Socarides, Kronemeyer, van den Aarweg, and Keefe. Various groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous of Reading, Pennsylvania, assist homosexuals in changing their orientation and behavior. 32 These principles come from J.D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: DTS, 1974) 143-49, who derives them from such sources as E. Nida, C.S. Lewis, and F. Fisher. See also C. Thiselton, "Semantics of NT Interpretation," in New Testament Interpretation (I.H. Marshall, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 75-104. 33 Grassmick, Principles 147-148. See also G Yule, The Study of Language (Cambridge: Univ Press, 1985) 176-77. 34 Ibid, 144. 35 An observation of Mr. Teebken who assisted in this project. 36 Although the existence of a homosexual orientation or conditio has been assumed, we are not thereby stipulating what is its cause or duration. Neither does Paul. He merely uses a word that covers both what a homsexual is and what he does, and at least for the latter he assigns culpability. Investigation of the cause and duration are beyond the scope of this study. Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: REXLEX@fnal.gov Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: De Young Organization: FNAL/AD/Net Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [from all the comments that I have seen posted and mailed, I have yet to find one that was not answered by this article. Again, this will be available in full in the faq file --Rex] From James De Young. Printed by permission. SUPPORT FOR THE PAULINE ORIGIN OF ARSENOKOITAI Some final questions remain to be answered regarding the source of Paul's term. As Mendell points out, anyone wishing to explain Paul's meaning must answer three questions.[36] Where does he get the word? Why does he use such an arcane word in speaking to his audience? If the word is ambiguous, as Boswell affirms, how can he expect to be understood? It is a reasonable position that Paul coined the term based on the juxtaposition of the two words arsenos and koiten in the LXX of Lev. 20:13 (cf. 18:22), though absolute proof of this is impossible. It may be suggested that the criteria of style, practice, familiarity with the LXX, and context make this a highly plausible conclusion, however. Paul has the practice of coining terms, it appears. For example, in I Tim 1:3 and 6:3, Paul used a term he had probably originated. The word heterodidaskaleo ("to teach a different doctrine") does not occur before Paul and only afterward in Ignatius to Polycarp 3:1.[37] Hence in the scope of eight verses Paul has possibly coined two terms, though one of them he had used earlier in I Cor 6:9. In general, statistics show that Paul probably coined many terms. There are 179 words found in Paul and nowhere else in pre-Christian Greek literature. Of these, 89 occur only one time. Other statistics support the theory that Paul had a creativity in choosing vocabulary. [39] In addition, Paul displayed considerable dependence upon the LXX. He usually quoted from the LXX rather than the Hebrew of the OT when he quoted the OT. Out of 93 quotations of the OT classified by Ellis, Paul used the LXX 14 times, but only 4 times did he quote the Hebrew. [40] Obviously Paul was familiar with and used the LXX. More particularly, the NT frequently uses the portion of Lev 18-20. The structure and content of these chapters mark them as special. Often identified as the "code of holiness," these chapters (unlike the remainder of Lev) are universal in their scope, much the same as the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 and Deut 5. The Jews held Lev 19 to be a kind of summary of the Torah, a central chapter in the Pentateuch. This respect carried over to the writers of the NT where chapters 18-20 are widely used. They are cited by Christ, Paul, Peter, and James. [41] "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is from Lev 19:18. When Paul alludes to 19:19 in 2 Cor 6:14 to illustrate the ban on unequal yoking, he coins a word heterozygountes ("being unequally yoked") that is found nowhere before him. Yet the adjective form heterozygo ("unequally yoked") occurs in 19:19. The LXX probably suggested the coinage to Paul. Most importantly, both of the contexts where arsenokoitai appears suggest that Paul was thinking of the Levitical "code of holiness." [42] First Cor 5 has many allusions to Lev 18-20. The theme is moral separation, as it is in Leviticus. Topics include distinction from the Gentiles (5:1; cf. 6:1-6; Lev 18:3, 24-30; 20:23) and future inheritance (kleronomeo ["I inherit"], 6:9, 10; Lev 20:23-24). The law of loving your neighbor (Lev 19:18) is reflected in 6:8. Of the ten vices in I Cor 6:9-10, only one (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. It is feasible, then that both malakoi and arsenokoitai came from Lev 20:13 and pint to the passive and the active same-sex roles. Leviticus 20:13 said that both persons were to be put to death (the penalty is not found in 18:22). The Corinthian list of vices may be a summation of Lev 20:23-24 (cf. 18:29-30). The same observations apply to I Tim 1:10. In the context Paul begins with perversions of teaching regarding the Mosaic Law (vv. 3-8), moves to legislation in general (vv. 9-10), and ends with the gospel (v. 11). With the Law of Moses so dominant, it is not surprising that the list of specific vices corresponds in order to the fifth through the ninth of the Ten Commandments. Since the list uses both single terms and doublets to refer to the Ten Commandments, it is more probable that andrapodistais ("slave-dealers") goes with the following "thieves" rather than with the preceding arsenokoitai. This militates against Scrogg's narrow sexual definition ("slave-dealers who procure boys as prostitutes," 120) of the term. Hence pornois and arsenokoitai represent the sixth commandment. The preceding discussion justifies the claim that Paul coined the word in question. No one else in Hellenistic Judaism used the term before Paul. Two questions remain. Why did Paul coin such a term? It may be suggested that he sought to demonstrate the relation of believers to the Law of Moses, in particular to show that the universal standards of the Law (derived from Ex 20 & Lev 18-20) were still valid. Paul assumed his readers' acquaintance with Judaism: note references to "Satan" (I Cor 5:5), the "Day of the Lord" (I Cor 5:5), "leaven" and "unleaven" (5:6-8), "Passover" (5:7), and judging angels (6:3). He quoted Deut 17:7 in 5:13. Since Lev 18-20 became central to the Day of Atonement, it was natural for Paul to refer to this section of Leviticus (cf. chaps. 16 & 23). The topic of the believer's relationship to the Law or law is the main point in 1 Tim 1. Finally, how could Paul expect his Greek readers to understand the term? Compounds involving arseno- and arreno- and koite- abounded. The Greeks were adept at forming compounded Greek words. [43] Therefore Paul coined a word that brought quick recognition. The word is general, reflecting the passage in Lev 20:13. Paul did not use androkoites ("male having sex with a male"), which would not have suggested a reference to pederasty. His term expressed gender but not gender and maturity; he condemned "males who lie with males of any age." [44] It agrees with the three fold use of arsen ("male") in Rom 1:27 where Paul condemns same-sex activity. This theory also explains why the word did not catch on with the secular world after Paul. The Gentiles did not appreciate the biblical context of OT moral legislation. Paul was ahead of and contrary to his time. Perhaps for the same reason "sodomist" and "sodomy" are fading from general secular usage today. CONCLUSION It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Lev 18-20; Ex 20) as authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about same-sex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or homosexuals in orientation. [45] English translations are justified in their use of words such as "homosexuals" or "sodomists". Besides, these terms should not be limited to acts or behavior. Just as an adulterous orientation or condition is wrong, so is a homosexual one. [46] In addition, it appears that lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. BAGD, TWNT, NIDNTT, EDNT) are too narrow in limiting, explicitly or implicitly, the term to male sexual activity with men or boys. However, since he referred to behavior in his lists in I Cor 6 & I Tim 1, he excluded from the kingdom of God all those who engage in same-sex behavior, including forms of pederasty, prostitution, or "permanent mutuality." The term malakoi used with arsenokoitai probably refers to the passive agent in same-sex activity and comes under similar condemnation. Other applications follow from the contexts involved. First, homosexual behavior is cause for church discipline in light of the context of I Cor 5-6. Certain religious bodies that approve a homosexual lifestyle have rejected scriptural authority. In addition, homosexual orientation should be a concern for church counsel and exhortation with a view toward molding a heterosexual orientation. Second, homosexual behavior is proper focus and concern of legislation in society and of the sanction of law, according to the context of I Tim 1:8-11. This suggests that "gay rights" is a misnomer. The movement has no legitimate claim to protection by the law. _______________________ 37 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 20. 38 Paul also uses rare terms found elsewhere outside the NT only. One such term is andrapodisteis which occurs in I Tim 1:10 and is important to the meaning of arsenokoitai. Scroggs defines the former term as "those who steal boys for sexual purposes" and uses it to define the preceding arsenokoitai as "pederasts." The word occurs in many pagan writers (e.g. Aristophances, Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Polybius, Dio Chrysostom). In Philo (Special Laws 4.13) it is uded generally of a kidnapper who steals people to reduce them to slavery. It appears that Scroggs is again too narrow in his definition and fails to appreciate the structure of OT background of the list of vices of I Tim 1:9-10. 39 For example, there are 433 words used only in both secular Greek and Paul. Of these 203 occur but once in Paul. More interestingly, 175 words occur only in both the LXX and Paul. Of these 31 occur but once in Paul. OF this last group 5 of the 31 are combinations of two words similar in pattern to that of arsenokoitai. See R. Morgenthaler, Statistik Des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes ('73 rpt; Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, n.d.) 175-80. The numbers are out calculations. 40 E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the OT (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 150-52. Some of the remainder of Paul's quotations are in agreement with both the LXX and Hebrew (19 times), and in others he agrees with neither. 41 Specific citations are available in J.B. De Young, "The OT Witness to Homosexuality: A Critical Assessment of the Prohomosexual Interpretation of the OT" (an unpublished paper read at theNW section, Evangelical Theological Society, Portland, Oregon, May 4, 1985) 22-23. 42 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 21-24. 43 Ibid., 21, 25-28. 44 Ibid., 6 n. 14. "Androkoites and it congate verb are much less frequent (c. 13 occurrences in secular papyri ranging from 30 BC to AD 140 [most before Paul] and apparently a few others [3?] in the church fathers). THere are c. 50 occurrences of arsenokoitai, apparently all post-Pauline. 45 One may cite additional reasons for including "adult-adult mutuality" as well as orientation or condition in Paul's term as the context and wording of Rom 1:26-27 make clear. See De Young, "Nature" 439-40. 46 It may be that one should distinquish between sexual feelings (amoral) and sexual lust or desire (immoral). From mls@panix.com Mon Jun 7 23:57:50 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA20594; Mon, 7 Jun 93 23:57:50 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA15919; Mon, 7 Jun 93 23:57:48 -0400 Received: from sun.Panix.Com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02557; Mon, 7 Jun 93 23:57:38 -0400 Received: by sun.Panix.Com id AA20501 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Mon, 7 Jun 1993 23:57:33 -0400 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: panix!not-for-mail From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Context in Leviticus Date: 7 Jun 1993 23:57:32 -0400 Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Lines: 98 Message-Id: <1v12nc$k0j@sun.Panix.Com> Summary: so, what applies and what doesn't? This arises from (but rest assured, I will not resume discussion of) the recent go-round in the homosexuality wars. At one point, someone offered the suggestion that the Levitical prohibitions of (male) same- sex relations deserve special consideration because of their proximity to the 2nd half of Jesus' "Great Commandment" in Leviticus 19:18b "Love your neighbor [the JPS Tanakh translates as "fellow"] as yourself." This is a most peculiar notion of "context." I won't enter into a discussion of the whole "Holiness Code" [mostly, I am waiting to see Jacob Milgrom's second volume in the Anchor Bible commentary -- he very carefully leaves off volume 1 at chapter 16 :-), or whoever writes the JPS Tanakh commentary -- Milgrom wrote the volume on Numbers, but I don't know if he or someone else will do Leviticus.] However, without entering into a discussion of chapters 18 or 20, chapter 19 is by itself fascinating -- and without a certain amount of midrash rather incoherent. It opens, as does the entire sequence of chapters 17 through 20 [but not 16 or 21], with JHWH speaking to Moses and instructing him to speak to the Israelites (where chapter 22, for example, is directed to "Aaron and his sons".) What we read in chapter 19 is [3] revere parents and keep sabbath [4] prohibition of idolatry [5-8] regulations about sacrifice [9-10 concerning leavings [for strangers to gather] of produce [11-12] do not steal, deal falsely, swear falsely by His Name [13] do not defraud [anyone], commit robbery, of hold back the laborer's wages for each day [14] do not insult the deaf or place stumbling blocks before the blind [Disabled Israelite Act of 1300 BCE :-)] [15] do not render unfair decisions, do not favor poor or rich (and deal fairly also with kin and countrymen) [16] ? [uncertain] [17] deal with kin without hatred and incurring no guilt [18] do not take vengeance, do not bear grudges, love others [19] do not let cattle mate with different kinds, do not sow a field with two kinds of seed [so much for crop rotation!] do not wear cloth from a mixture of two materials. [20] it's a minor (non-capital) offense for a man to have sex with a female slave "designated for another man." [21-22] explain what to do when this happens anyway :-) [23-25] "Circumcision" of fruit trees. [26] do not eat anything with its blood, do not practice divination [27] do not round off your hair or shave your beard [28] do not "make gashes in your flesh for the dead or incise any marks on yourselves." [29] do not put your daughter out to prostitution "lest the land fall into harlotry and be filled with depravity [never mind what your daughter might think.] [30] keep the sabbaths and venerate the sanctuary [31] do not turn to ghosts and inquire of familiar spirits [32] show deference to the aged [33-34] do not wrong strangers [34 repeats the "love as yourself" of verse 18, to make sure that the Great Commandment is not limited to just those of *our* sort], "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." [35-36] use honest weights and measures What a collection! A good part of the 10 commandments is repeated here in a somewhat less transcendental mode. Much of this *is* a fully *moral* [i.e., dealing with the values involved in inter-human interactions] prescription, and much seems rather odd to us today. One *could* argue [with more or less reading "beyond" the texts] for Christian "exemption" from sabbaths (from Paul, or with a lot more extreme deduction from comments by Jesus about the Sabbath) or from the hair and clothing thingy from Jesus' *implicitly* dismissive remarks about the Pharisees' love of display [Matthew 23:5]. And we may read Hebrews to see Christ as our one, sufficient sacrifice, and thereby an end to sacrificial regulation as in 5-8. But PLEASE note how much beyond the letter of what Jesus says you have to *push* this to get to anything like current Christian opinion on these subjects! What in the New Testament gives us license to disregard 9-10, 13, 19 and 26 [which last is even re-imposed by the Council of Jerusalem]?? What makes the offenders against 13, 15, 26, 28 or 35-36 such that THEY are welcome in your congregations, and ministers are not very strictly examined lest they have tattos or eat blood sausages? I note, of course, that SOME people DO (via Acts) find the law in 26 applicable. And I do not wish to say that they are wrong for them- selves. But I *have* to ask the majority of Christians who do NOT observe this law, why this -- with specific NT warrant -- is ignorable when SOME Levitical laws are still supposed to apply to us? The idea of seeking law for Christians in Jewish Torah is an abomination. It is a REJECTION of the gospel of God's love FOR THE WHOLE WORLD in Christ, and His satisfaction of the "demands" of His Torah on our behalf. I could not meet -- and do not need -- the justification of the Law before God. Why do people seek to grab a few parts, out of all the mass that they deliberately ignore, to CONDEMN others? What has THAT to do with the gospel? -- Michael L. Siemon I say "You are gods, sons of the mls@panix.com Most High, all of you; nevertheless - or - you shall die like men, and fall mls@ulysses.att..com like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7 Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Because of the renewed interest on this subject, I will type, with permission, an article by James DeYoung. I think it is one of the best articles that I've read todate from the conservative position. Also, for those who can't get through to me, you may try one of these: REXLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV LEXREX@ALMOND.FNAL.GOV Loren Senders@ADMAIL.FNAL.GOV ************************************* THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY James B. DeYoung Professor of New Testament Western Conservative Baptist Seminary Portland, Oregon Traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai ("homosexuals") in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 refers to sexual vice between people of the same sex, specifically homosexualitiy. Some restrict the term's meaning to "active male prostititute," but stronger evidence supports a more general translation, namely "homosexuals." More recently the definition "homosexual" has been opposed on clutural and linguistic grounds, the claim being that the term "homosexuals" is anachronistic. In addition, criticism of the traditional rendering says the term today includes celibate homophiles, excludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, and includes female homosexuals. A concern for acts instead of the modern attention to desires was the only factor in the ancient world. The foregoing oppositition to the translation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" has a number of debilitating weaknesses. Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual orientation and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church discipline (I Cor 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11). ************************************* INTRODUCTION Coincident with the rise of the gay rights movement in recent years has been an increasing focus on the biblical statements regarding homosexuality or sodomy. As part of this focus, the meaning of the term arsenokoitai, used twice by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), has received vigorous scrutiny. This issue is particularly crucial to contemporary society since so much of modern ethics is shaped by biblical statements. More particularly, the concern over gay rights and the place of gays or homosexuals in the church and in society require the resolution of biblical interpretation. This study of historical, linguistic, and literary matters will survey and evalutate recent proposals for the meaning of arsenokoitai and present evidence to point to a resolution. Several writers and their positions represent the modern debate on this word. Three authors, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs, have provoked considerable discussion and significantly encouraged the wider acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in society, in the church, and in the ministry. Footnotes: _______________________ 1. For convenience sake, the term "homosexual" is used to encompass both same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior. The meaning of this term is one of the main considerations of this study. 2. These times are differnt from just over a century ago. Then P Fairbairn (Pastoral Epistles [Edinburg, 1874) 891) could write of arsenokoitai thit it is a "term for which fortunately our language has no proper equivalent." Unknowingly he thereby touched upon the basis for the contemporary debate and study. THe present writer endorses the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles on the basis of internal and external evidence (see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [4th ed; 1990] 621-649, for an extensive discussion and citation of supporters of the Pauline authorship). 3. For example, see Scroggs' influence on M. Olson, "Untangling the Web," The Other Side (April 1984): 24-29. For a study suggesting a further prohibition of homosexuality in the OT, see A. Phillips, "Unconvering the Father's Skirt," VT 30/1 (Jan, 1980) 38-43. For a bibliography of other sources dealing with arsenokoitai, see the Wisondisc Religion Indexes (NY: H. Wison Co., 1987). -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE] Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-2] SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI D.S. Bailey D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning of arsenokoitai. He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who engage passively in such acts.*4 However, he insists that Paul knew nothing of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual practice as evidence of perversion" (38). Hence Bailey limits the term's reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the term as "homosexuals." Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual *condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in source]. Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation "sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39). Bailey clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers. J. Boswell The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is that of John Boswell.*5 Whereas the usual translation*6 of this term gives it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive sense. In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes." His argument is that the arseno- part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to base sexual activity. Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male sexual person or male prostitute. He acknowledges, however, that most interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make their bed with, men." Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the historical setting. He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes ("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance. His point is that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning. More directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective (343). Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-. Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti. These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects. The Greek arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci; the corresponding passive would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms. He claims that arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed fornication."*7 In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of Paul" (346).*8 He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus Empiricus, and Libanius. He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions of homosexual relation" (346)*9 among Christian sources in Greek, including the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10 Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom is singled out for his omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11 Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12 Cited are Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. The last named uses "circumlocutions." Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius Felix. The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation. By the sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife (353). Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes, There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every reason to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353). It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male prostitutes. He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not disapprove of "gay inclination," "gay relationships," "enduring love between persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism" (112, 166-17). ________________________________________________________ 4. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 5. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). 6. Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here. 10.. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1." 11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1, or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351) that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai. 12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the Greek" (348 n.36). footnotes: _______________________ 5. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 6. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here. 10. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicael." 11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1, or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351) that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai. 12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the Greek" (348 n.36). Next: R. Scroggs -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE] From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Thu Nov 2 09:30:52 1995 Return-Path: news@fnnews.fnal.gov Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by aramis.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA26097 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:30:52 -0500 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzocw04035; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA28619 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Thu, 2 Nov 1995 08:30:41 -0600 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: mauhdib.fnal.gov!user From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 08:30:42 -0600 Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Lines: 209 Message-Id: Nntp-Posting-Host: mauhdib.fnal.gov [cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3] R. Scroggs Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and suggested a new twist to the word. Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a "Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic terminology." The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male"). Yet he believes that Paul did not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14). It was invented to avoid "contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108). If this is true, Scroggs observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it. It was meaningless to native-speaking Greeks (108). Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion" (107). Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a male" to have a very narrow reference. With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9), which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108). Hence arsenokoitai does not refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic model of pederasty. It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he affirms (109). This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also. The combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them]" (120). It again refers to that specific form of pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121). Even "serious minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty. He then uses these instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1. Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122). We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122). In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul. The form and function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped. Any relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually nonexistent. He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in the lists" (104). Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices," Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are "irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129). The "model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of ordination. . . " (127). REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI D. Wright In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have come under closer scrutiny. Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's view is that by David Wright. In his thorough article, Wright points out several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai. He faults Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic Constitutions," Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28). Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with a male," making arseno- the object. Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell claims that compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference between the two forms" (131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its gender" (132). It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources. For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis, androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion. Boswell fails to cite Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the Syriac writer Bardensanes. The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34). Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134). Sometimes this parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia ("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris (136). Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43). Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73. It may be, Wright observes, that the word was coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38). Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John the Faster (d. 595) (139-40). The last in particular bears the idea of homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell. Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted (140-41). Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g. Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41). Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention (141-44). Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom, omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue. Chrysostom gives a long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom 1:26. Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term. Wright observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual activity" (144). It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim and I Cor. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning "homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of the word (144-45). None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited conclusion based on them. Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the catalogues of vices as a literary form. He believes that such lists developed in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Greek world. This paralleled the increased concern on the part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence. The term came into being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual engagement with paides" (146). If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146). In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning homosexuality and arises with Judaism. The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without significant support from linguistic and historical studies. [Next: the questioning of Wrights position by William Peterson. After that, we get into the "good" stuff of historical & linguistic studies. THis will include "Symposium" by Plato. If there is any doubt as to the modern understanding of homosexuality being understood or contemmplated at the time of Paul, this will certainly clear things up. Also we will review Paul's use of Lev18-20 in the NT and how, as for him, 1) the Law was fulfilled, but not done away with, 2) Lev 18-20 was the universal and the following chapters the general. Those who put forth that the OT no longer holds true today in our culture, should stick around for this one.] ___________________________ 13 R. Scroggs, THe New Testament and Homosexuality (Phil: 1983) 86, 107-8. Independently we came to the same conclusion. Apparently the connection is made in E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Periods (from 146BC to AD 1100). 14 See discussion, 101-4. He says the same thing about Paul's language in Rom 1:26-27 (128). But this is doubtful. See the more cautious words of P. Zaas, "I Cor 6.9ff: Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church? SBLASP 17 (1979):205-12. He observes that the words moixai, malakoi, and arsenokoitai were part of Jewish anti-Gentile polemic. Yet Paul's wors at the end of the vice list, "and such were some of you," indicate that "Paul is addressing real or potential abuses of his ethical message, not citing primitive tradition by rote" (210). Wright disputes Zaas' attempt to associate the term with idolatry (147). 15 On Boswell's treatment of Rom 1:26-7, the article by R.B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural" A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," JRE 14/1 (Spring 1986): 184-215, is an excellent critique. 16 D.F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (I Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), VC 38 (1984):125-53. 17 In an unpublished paper, Henry Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI: Boswell on Paul," effectively refutres Boswell's claims regarding the philology of arsenokoitai. He finds the meaning to be general, "a male who has sex with a male" (4-11). 18 Wright's endnotes (148-49) list additional sources in the church fathers. 19 We also have noticed the same tendency by Boswell to fail to cite all the references to Sodom and sodomy in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. See J.B. DeYoung, "A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," BSac 146/588 (1990):437-53. 20 In light of the claim made by Boswell that the infrequency of arsenokoitai points to a meaning lacking homosexual significance, Wright asks pertinently "why neither Philo nor Josephus use paidofthoria, nor Josephus paiderastia, and why . . Clement did not use the latter and Chrysostom the former?" (152 n. 71) In a more recent article, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," EvQ 61 (1989):291-300, Wright reiterates these same points. Paul shows a "remarkable originality" in extending the OT ethic to the church (300). -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE] Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu continuing part #4 ; used by permission, THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY James B. DeYoung W. Petersen More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a different direction. In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of arsenokoitai.[22] He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10. In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey. He finds "homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic. "A major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88). What is this "disjunction"? He bases it on historical and linguistic facts. Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in describing these actions. Ancient society know nothing of the categories of "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23] In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual" to desire and propensity. K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189). Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary," which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no mention of acts. Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history "where no equivalent concept existed" (189). Consequently the translation is inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes female homosexuals" (19=89). Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure, either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189). The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio "homosexual" is mistaken. Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds? The next phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS" Historical Grounds A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence. Since virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available. Yet much writing reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary with Paul. The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to present-day concepts. Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be part of the definition of the term. They assert this either because the term is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient times (Bailey; Petersen). The following discussion will show why neither of these positions is legitimate. Attention will be devoted to the latter postion first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds." In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the homosexual condition exist before 1869? Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex orientation or condition. Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in "Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient ingnorance of this condition. He discounts this, however, believing that even here "acts appear to be the deciding factor." However, this is a very significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition. THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24] Plato posits a third sex comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature" palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings. Zeus sliced these human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the gods. Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the opposite sex or one of the same sex. Plato then quotes Aristophances: Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex, whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses. All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men: they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions. Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be clasped in men's embrasces; these are the finest boys and striplings, for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other's side for a single moment. These are they who continue together throughout life, though they could not even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25] Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all the time: (192e). Several observations about this text are in order. Lesbianism is contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e). "Natural interest" (ton noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: (paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to be born this," i.e., as homosexual. The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is present. Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present. Further mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty, homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is recognizable. Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from actions. THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is crucial; money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e). There are tow kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion" (186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c). Noteworthy is the speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is related to love and its objects (200a-201c). Desire is felt for "what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack." This is the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e). This ancient philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of being or nature. His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26] In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato. Petersen is in error when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not inclination or orientation. Widespread evidence to the contray supports the latter. [27] Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction. In Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor 6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt. 23:28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise to the other (cf. Mt 5:27). Petersen errs regarding other particulars too. Transvestism apparently was accepted by the ancients. It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian, people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28] Only a few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it. For example, Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman. Philo also goes to some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women (The Special Laws III, 37-41; see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he justifies prohibition of cross-dressing). Even the OT forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes (Deut 22:5). Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the "new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior. These did not begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu, Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29] Linguistic Grounds footnotes ___________________________ 22 W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor 6:9; I Tim 1:10)" VC 40 (1986): 187-91. 23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1. 24 We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's view. However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover (Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato: Symposioum LCL (Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143. Note the reference to "adulteress." If there is a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth. 26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; the latter should be outlawed (181d-e). Such love of youths is to be permanent (181d), lifelong and abiding (184a). Where homosexual love is considered a disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?). In Athens it was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression of "coming out of the closet"). Mutality was present ("this compels lover and beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b). For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position is inadequate and misrepresentative. It is a significant witness to Greek society hundreds of years before the time of Christ. 27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere. Philo writes of those who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws 3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63). Josephus says that homosexuality had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75) Clement of Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1) It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts). Pseudo Lucian (Erostes 48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it. Finally Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard which nature has set for your sex." Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers (Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual homosexual relationships, even marriages. Even emperors could be either gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says. Scroggs (Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have existed in the past. He discusses possible references to adult mutual homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44). 28 See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250. He observes that the prohibition of cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." See also Dover, Homosexuality 73-76, 144. 29 Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para phosin)(Laws 636a-b; 636c; 836a-c; 838; 841d-e). According to TEST.NAPH 3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature." THe Jewish writers, Philo (On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199; 2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature." Finally,, first century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of homosexuality as "against nature." Christians clearly did not invent the labels "natural" and "unnatural". See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41. -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE] Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [Again, this is reprinted with permission from Dr. James De Young of W. Conservative Baptist Sem, from the article "The Source and NT Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI, with Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry" as printed in The Masters Seminary Journal, Fall of '92, 191-215. --Rex] Linguistic Grounds The research of Wright and Mendell cited, as well as ancient writers documented above, shows that arsenokoitai is a broad term. It cannot be limited to pederasty or "active male prostitutes"; nor can it be limited to acts. It must also include same-sex orientation or condition. The main difficulty, however, with Petersen's study and that of others before him, lies in the area of linguistics or philology pertain to the modern term "homosexuals." Petersen has an erroneous concept of dictionaries and meaning when citing the incompatibility of the English and Greek terms. The preceding historical evidence demonstrates that ancient concepts of homosexuality, though primarily understood as sexual acts, cannot be limited to acts alone. It is plausible, then, that the term arsenokoitai may include both acts and orientation or desire -at least in the contexts of Rom 1, I Cor 6 and I Tim 1. Paul knew about the immorality in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus (note the similarity of Eph 4:17-24 and 5:3-12 with I Tim 1 and I Cor 6). A subsequent question arises: is the modern term "homosexual" limited to orientation or inclination, excluding acts or behavior? Petersen answers in the affirmative and cites as support both the creator of the word and the meaning he assigned to it, as well as the standard dictionary, Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. In n. 9 (190), however, Petersen acknowledges that Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) does include a reference to one who "practices homosexuality" and "same-sex sexual activity" after the definitions referring to inclination and preference. He dismisses this as a "popularized, perhaps Americanized usage," as "slang," and as a "corruption of the original meaning." He characterizes Webster's lexicographers as "ignorant of the psychological facts of the case, even though they may be correctly recording the use of the word in popular speech" (190). Yet Peterson has overlooked several important points or principles. The first one concerns lexicography. Once a word has entered the stream of society it is defined by its entire context -what the users mean by it, regardless of its original definition. Dictionaries reflect usage, including the changes in a word's meaning. It is apparent that popular and scholarly usage of "homosexuals" today has come to include "same-sex behavior"; indeed this may now be the more prominent definition. If this be so, in light of the breadth of meaning of arsenokoitai, "homosexuals" is a closer approximation of its meaning than believed by Bailey, Boswell, Petersen, and others. A second principle is that words are constantly changing in meaning. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged second ed., 1965) does not include "practice" under the definition of "homosexual" and uses only the words "sexual relations between individuals of the same sex" as the second definition of "homosexuality." Webster's definitions have changed in the span of just six years (compare the 3rd ed. cited above). For Petersen to restrict the meaning to an earlier one and to call the later definition a "corruption" is unfortunate. The meaning of a word may change by being deepened, by being given new value, by taking on a new meaning, or by being given a new concrete application. In the case of "homosexuals," it appears that several of these kinds of changes are occurring because of the increasingly frequent use of the word in different contexts ranging from popular speech to scholarly circles. A third principle is that words usually mark out a field of meaning. That is, words usually do not have a point of meaning, i.e., a very small area of meaning. The historical-cultural study above show that homosexuality -or whatever word describes it- existed in various forms including prostitution, pederasty, lesbianism, orientation, and mutuality. The Greeks and Romans employed scores of terms to describe such orientation and behavior. Therefore, it is plausible that such a term as arsenokoitai has a broad meaning when its etymology is simply "male-bed" or "lying with a male" assuming that the context does not restrict it to a narrower meaning. A fourth principle stems from the preceding. Since no two words have exactly the same area of meaning, no true synonyms exist within a language and no exact equivalents occur between languages. This allows arsenokoitai to be translated "homosexuals" even though it is somewhat imprecise to do so. Terms in two languages can never be exactly equivalent because their context can never be identical (given at least, the time span). They do not share the same area of meaning. It may well be that "sodomist" better represents the idea of arsenokoitai, since both terms in their moral and biblical settings represent contexts closer to one another. It may be that Benkert in 1869 misread or was unacquainted with the history of homosexuality in ancient times. He may have unwittingly altered the whole discussion of the subject by limiting his new term to the homosexual condition. Petersen asserts that translating arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" is anachronistic (the ancients had no concept equivalent to homosexual desire; the English term is limited to homosexual desire), but he is conclusively in error as the above historical-cultural evidence and linguistic principles show. Certain terms such as arrenomanes ("mad after males"), 4th c. A.D. show that there was a "cognitive structure" for the homosexual condition before 1869 (cf. I Cor 6:11, "and such were some of you"). The most that can be said for Petersen's position is that the ancients may not have had a term of exclusive sexual categories (whether a person is "homosexual" or "heterosexual"), whereas moderns do have one or at least may refer to one's primary attraction. Hence the contemporary concept of a homosexual may be slightly different from the ancients, who spoke only of what they considered to be a number of equal options. Yet some evidence indicates that "exclusively homosexual" persons were identifiable to the ancients (see n. 27 above). Both the Greek and English terms appear broad enough to cover such cases and cannot be limited to acts. Petersen has decidedly overstated the case for both the ancients and the modern era. Summary of Reactions to the New Interpretations It is improper to be prescriptive as to the meaning of arsenokoitai. It is better to descriptive. In surveying those who have written on the meaning of the term, Bailey Boswell and Scroggs have erred or have been incomplete when they, respectively, define the term as "perverts," "male sexual agents" or "active male prostitutes," and "pederasts." It is more credible that historical and cultural evidence supports the conclusion that the term is broad enough to include both the various forms of homosexual acts and the homosexual condition, inversion or orientation. The studies by Wright and others supply the linguistic evidence for the more general sense of "homosexuals." As to the assertion by Petersen that the English "homosexuals" should not be used to render arsenokoitai, it is evident that the English and the Greek words are sufficiently broad to make them fair and suitable equivalents. Because of usage in various historical and modern contexts, each must include both homosexual behavior and orientation or condition. NEXT: Support For the Pauline Origin of ARSENOKOITAI footnotes: ____________________ 30 The philological research byMendell, in particular, is comprehensive and convincing. He finds Boswell wrong on many points including his observations about the Latin exoleti (5); the prevalence of active male prostitution (6); the meaning of koitai as a coarse and active word (7); the meanings of compoounds of loit- (7-10); the prevalence of arsenokoitai in the church fathers (11-18); the law in Roman societ (13); the statements of Sextus about Greek law (13); and secular uses (18-19). In appendices Mendell devotes detailed examination to how compounds are formed, including those with koitas (25-28), and such comounds in astrological settings (28-29). Our own philological study confirms Mendell's observations. Mr. Tim Teebken assisted this writer in searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. THe search revealed thousands of occurrences of forms of koit-, mix-, and phthor-. Paiderast- occurs 200 times and androbatein ("practice unnatural vice"),ansromania ("mad after men") and arratourgia ("filthy lewdness") and arrntopoieo ("do unmentionable vice") occur only rarely. LSJ cites these and other words referring to "unnatural vice." 31 Petersen's refernce to the "psychological facts of the case" begs the question. If he is referring to Kinsey and other studies, the "facts" have been disputed. Many psychologists use "homosexual" to cover both orientation and behavior, and have seen many people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. These include such psychologists (who have published) as Bergler, Anna Freud, Haddon, Hatterer, Janov, Socarides, Kronemeyer, van den Aarweg, and Keefe. Various groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous of Reading, Pennsylvania, assist homosexuals in changing their orientation and behavior. 32 These principles come from J.D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: DTS, 1974) 143-49, who derives them from such sources as E. Nida, C.S. Lewis, and F. Fisher. See also C. Thiselton, "Semantics of NT Interpretation," in New Testament Interpretation (I.H. Marshall, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 75-104. 33 Grassmick, Principles 147-148. See also G Yule, The Study of Language (Cambridge: Univ Press, 1985) 176-77. 34 Ibid, 144. 35 An observation of Mr. Teebken who assisted in this project. 36 Although the existence of a homosexual orientation or conditio has been assumed, we are not thereby stipulating what is its cause or duration. Neither does Paul. He merely uses a word that covers both what a homsexual is and what he does, and at least for the latter he assigns culpability. Investigation of the cause and duration are beyond the scope of this study. -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE] From news@fnnews.fnal.gov Thu Nov 2 09:35:30 1995 Return-Path: news@fnnews.fnal.gov Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by aramis.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA26703 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:35:29 -0500 Received: from fnnews.fnal.gov by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzocw04639; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:35:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by fnnews.fnal.gov id AA29018 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net); Thu, 2 Nov 1995 08:35:05 -0600 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: mauhdib.fnal.gov!user From: RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov (REXLEX) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Source & NT Meaning of "Homosexual" Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 08:35:06 -0600 Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Lines: 191 Message-Id: Nntp-Posting-Host: mauhdib.fnal.gov >From James De Young. Printed by permission. SUPPORT FOR THE PAULINE ORIGIN OF ARSENOKOITAI Some final questions remain to be answered regarding the source of Paul's term. As Mendell points out, anyone wishing to explain Paul's meaning must answer three questions.[36] Where does he get the word? Why does he use such an arcane word in speaking to his audience? If the word is ambiguous, as Boswell affirms, how can he expect to be understood? It is a reasonable position that Paul coined the term based on the juxtaposition of the two words arsenos and koiten in the LXX of Lev. 20:13 (cf. 18:22), though absolute proof of this is impossible. It may be suggested that the criteria of style, practice, familiarity with the LXX, and context make this a highly plausible conclusion, however. Paul has the practice of coining terms, it appears. For example, in I Tim 1:3 and 6:3, Paul used a term he had probably originated. The word heterodidaskaleo ("to teach a different doctrine") does not occur before Paul and only afterward in Ignatius to Polycarp 3:1.[37] Hence in the scope of eight verses Paul has possibly coined two terms, though one of them he had used earlier in I Cor 6:9. In general, statistics show that Paul probably coined many terms. There are 179 words found in Paul and nowhere else in pre-Christian Greek literature. Of these, 89 occur only one time. Other statistics support the theory that Paul had a creativity in choosing vocabulary. [39] In addition, Paul displayed considerable dependence upon the LXX. He usually quoted from the LXX rather than the Hebrew of the OT when he quoted the OT. Out of 93 quotations of the OT classified by Ellis, Paul used the LXX 14 times, but only 4 times did he quote the Hebrew. [40] Obviously Paul was familiar with and used the LXX. More particularly, the NT frequently uses the portion of Lev 18-20. The structure and content of these chapters mark them as special. Often identified as the "code of holiness," these chapters (unlike the remainder of Lev) are universal in their scope, much the same as the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 and Deut 5. The Jews held Lev 19 to be a kind of summary of the Torah, a central chapter in the Pentateuch. This respect carried over to the writers of the NT where chapters 18-20 are widely used. They are cited by Christ, Paul, Peter, and James. [41] "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is from Lev 19:18. When Paul alludes to 19:19 in 2 Cor 6:14 to illustrate the ban on unequal yoking, he coins a word heterozygountes ("being unequally yoked") that is found nowhere before him. Yet the adjective form heterozygo ("unequally yoked") occurs in 19:19. The LXX probably suggested the coinage to Paul. Most importantly, both of the contexts where arsenokoitai appears suggest that Paul was thinking of the Levitical "code of holiness." [42] First Cor 5 has many allusions to Lev 18-20. The theme is moral separation, as it is in Leviticus. Topics include distinction from the Gentiles (5:1; cf. 6:1-6; Lev 18:3, 24-30; 20:23) and future inheritance (kleronomeo ["I inherit"], 6:9, 10; Lev 20:23-24). The law of loving your neighbor (Lev 19:18) is reflected in 6:8. Of the ten vices in I Cor 6:9-10, only one (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. It is feasible, then that both malakoi and arsenokoitai came from Lev 20:13 and pint to the passive and the active same-sex roles. Leviticus 20:13 said that both persons were to be put to death (the penalty is not found in 18:22). The Corinthian list of vices may be a summation of Lev 20:23-24 (cf. 18:29-30). The same observations apply to I Tim 1:10. In the context Paul begins with perversions of teaching regarding the Mosaic Law (vv. 3-8), moves to legislation in general (vv. 9-10), and ends with the gospel (v. 11). With the Law of Moses so dominant, it is not surprising that the list of specific vices corresponds in order to the fifth through the ninth of the Ten Commandments. Since the list uses both single terms and doublets to refer to the Ten Commandments, it is more probable that andrapodistais ("slave-dealers") goes with the following "thieves" rather than with the preceding arsenokoitai. This militates against Scrogg's narrow sexual definition ("slave-dealers who procure boys as prostitutes," 120) of the term. Hence pornois and arsenokoitai represent the sixth commandment. The preceding discussion justifies the claim that Paul coined the word in question. No one else in Hellenistic Judaism used the term before Paul. Two questions remain. Why did Paul coin such a term? It may be suggested that he sought to demonstrate the relation of believers to the Law of Moses, in particular to show that the universal standards of the Law (derived from Ex 20 & Lev 18-20) were still valid. Paul assumed his readers' acquaintance with Judaism: note references to "Satan" (I Cor 5:5), the "Day of the Lord" (I Cor 5:5), "leaven" and "unleaven" (5:6-8), "Passover" (5:7), and judging angels (6:3). He quoted Deut 17:7 in 5:13. Since Lev 18-20 became central to the Day of Atonement, it was natural for Paul to refer to this section of Leviticus (cf. chaps. 16 & 23). The topic of the believer's relationship to the Law or law is the main point in 1 Tim 1. Finally, how could Paul expect his Greek readers to understand the term? Compounds involving arseno- and arreno- and koite- abounded. The Greeks were adept at forming compounded Greek words. [43] Therefore Paul coined a word that brought quick recognition. The word is general, reflecting the passage in Lev 20:13. Paul did not use androkoites ("male having sex with a male"), which would not have suggested a reference to pederasty. His term expressed gender but not gender and maturity; he condemned "males who lie with males of any age." [44] It agrees with the three fold use of arsen ("male") in Rom 1:27 where Paul condemns same-sex activity. This theory also explains why the word did not catch on with the secular world after Paul. The Gentiles did not appreciate the biblical context of OT moral legislation. Paul was ahead of and contrary to his time. Perhaps for the same reason "sodomist" and "sodomy" are fading from general secular usage today. CONCLUSION It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Lev 18-20; Ex 20) as authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about same-sex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or homosexuals in orientation. [45] English translations are justified in their use of words such as "homosexuals" or "sodomists". Besides, these terms should not be limited to acts or behavior. Just as an adulterous orientation or condition is wrong, so is a homosexual one. [46] In addition, it appears that lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. BAGD, TWNT, NIDNTT, EDNT) are too narrow in limiting, explicitly or implicitly, the term to male sexual activity with men or boys. However, since he referred to behavior in his lists in I Cor 6 & I Tim 1, he excluded from the kingdom of God all those who engage in same-sex behavior, including forms of pederasty, prostitution, or "permanent mutuality." The term malakoi used with arsenokoitai probably refers to the passive agent in same-sex activity and comes under similar condemnation. Other applications follow from the contexts involved. First, homosexual behavior is cause for church discipline in light of the context of I Cor 5-6. Certain religious bodies that approve a homosexual lifestyle have rejected scriptural authority. In addition, homosexual orientation should be a concern for church counsel and exhortation with a view toward molding a heterosexual orientation. Second, homosexual behavior is proper focus and concern of legislation in society and of the sanction of law, according to the context of I Tim 1:8-11. This suggests that "gay rights" is a misnomer. The movement has no legitimate claim to protection by the law. _______________________ 37 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 20. 38 Paul also uses rare terms found elsewhere outside the NT only. One such term is andrapodisteis which occurs in I Tim 1:10 and is important to the meaning of arsenokoitai. Scroggs defines the former term as "those who steal boys for sexual purposes" and uses it to define the preceding arsenokoitai as "pederasts." The word occurs in many pagan writers (e.g. Aristophances, Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Polybius, Dio Chrysostom). In Philo (Special Laws 4.13) it is uded generally of a kidnapper who steals people to reduce them to slavery. It appears that Scroggs is again too narrow in his definition and fails to appreciate the structure of OT background of the list of vices of I Tim 1:9-10. 39 For example, there are 433 words used only in both secular Greek and Paul. Of these 203 occur but once in Paul. More interestingly, 175 words occur only in both the LXX and Paul. Of these 31 occur but once in Paul. OF this last group 5 of the 31 are combinations of two words similar in pattern to that of arsenokoitai. See R. Morgenthaler, Statistik Des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes ('73 rpt; Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, n.d.) 175-80. The numbers are out calculations. 40 E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the OT (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 150-52. Some of the remainder of Paul's quotations are in agreement with both the LXX and Hebrew (19 times), and in others he agrees with neither. 41 Specific citations are available in J.B. De Young, "The OT Witness to Homosexuality: A Critical Assessment of the Prohomosexual Interpretation of the OT" (an unpublished paper read at theNW section, Evangelical Theological Society, Portland, Oregon, May 4, 1985) 22-23. 42 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 21-24. 43 Ibid., 21, 25-28. 44 Ibid., 6 n. 14. "Androkoites and it congate verb are much less frequent (c. 13 occurrences in secular papyri ranging from 30 BC to AD 140 [most before Paul] and apparently a few others [3?] in the church fathers). THere are c. 50 occurrences of arsenokoitai, apparently all post-Pauline. 45 One may cite additional reasons for including "adult-adult mutuality" as well as orientation or condition in Paul's term as the context and wording of Rom 1:26-27 make clear. See De Young, "Nature" 439-40. 46 It may be that one should distinquish between sexual feelings (amoral) and sexual lust or desire (immoral). -- God created Arrakis to train the faithful. One cannot go against the hand of God. Paul Muad'dib [DUNE]