Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21659
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI 2 -Bailey/Boswell
Message-ID: <May.18.00.54.45.1993.9544@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 18 May 93 04:54:46 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 184
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

[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
