Jewish Encyclopedia-Immorality
The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name
[size=+1]כלב[/size] ("dog") for the class of
priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks
[size=+1]κυναίδοι[/size] [dogs, OD], Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare
ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver
ad loc.), though
[size=+1]כלבם[/size] [dogs, OD] as the regular name of priests attached to the temple of Ashtoret at Larnaca has been found on the monuments (see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D&search=sexual immorality
Jewish Encyclopedia -Chastity
The unnatural crimes against chastity,
sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C&search=sodomy
Point
We Cant Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically
by Rabbi Joel Roth
In point of fact, the two verses in the book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the
Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism.
http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
1 Cor 6:9 NET translators notes.
5
tn This term [
[size=+1]μαλακοι[/size]] is sometimes rendered effeminate, although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 has pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship,
effeminate esp. of
catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship. L&N 88.281 states, the passive male partner in homosexual intercoursehomosexual.
As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse. See also the discussion in G. D. Fee,
First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase male prostitutes for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean males who sell their services to women, while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation passive homosexual partners has been used here.
6
tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" [
[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]]
states, a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex,
pederast 1 Cor 6:9
of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. malakov"
1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. L&N 88.280 states, a male partner in homosexual intercoursehomosexual.
It is possible that ajrsenokoivth" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner. Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification practicing was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice
1.
LINGUISTIC ARGUMENTS
* * *
A.
yada' in Genesis 19 & Judges 19
[Note, all listed counter arguments omitted, except 1.B. See link, below, for full discussion.]
* * *
B.
Malakos and arsenokoitai in I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10
Another major linguistic argument is presented in John Boswell's book,
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. His argument involves the interpretation of the Greek terms
malakos and
arsenokoitai found in I Cor. 6:9, with the latter term also found in I Tim. 1:10.
In I Cor. 6:9, Paul states that among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are
malakoi and arsenokoitai. In I Tim. 1:10 Paul states that the law is made for lawbreakers, the ungodly, the sinful, etc., among whom he includes (inappropriate contentoi and) arsenokoitai. Boswell notes that it is these two terms that have been used to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven.
Boswell insists that malakos, whose root meaning is 'soft,' means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self control" in a moral context. He argues that it is "wholly gratuitous" to apply this to homosexuals.[13] "The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically." The unanimous tradition of the church through Middle Ages, the Reformation and Catholicism into the twentieth century was to understand this word as applying to masturbation. With that no longer censured, Boswell claims that the condemnatory sense of this term has been transferred to homosexuals, especially because of its connection with the term arsenokoitai.[14] Scanzoni and Mollenkott suggest that malakoi could well be translated as "self-indulgent." In I Cor. 6:9 they claim that it refers to men who think of nothing but chasing after women for the sake of sexual conquest. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott differ from Boswell in their view of the exact meaning of malakoi, they agree with him in insisting that it is improper to understand this term as referring to homosexual behaviour.[15]
The thrust of Boswell's linguistic argument has to do with the term arsenokoitai, used by Paul in both I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10. He claims that this term meant "male prostitute" to Paul and his contemporaries, and it maintained that meaning well into the fourth century. It was only much later that it was confused with and applied to homosexuality.[16]
Boswell's argument involves two components. The first entails the exact meaning of this term. Since examples of its usage are difficult to find prior to Paul, the meaning of the compound word must be determined from the two parts of the compound and the way they function together. These are: arsen and koitai. The first part, arsen is generally agreed as referring to males. The second part, koitai, refers to sleeping. Boswell argues that the second part stresses the coarseness and active licentiousness of the sleeping denoted, and is equivalent to the coarse English word, "[omitted]," that is, the one who takes an active role in intercourse.[17] He also maintains that in no compound words with the prefix arseno- is it ever used as an object of the second half of the compound. It always has an adjectival sense, denoting the gender of the second half of the compound. This understanding leads Boswell to conclude that arsenokoitai refers to "active male prostitutes." The term says nothing about the sex of those served by the prostitutes; they could be either male or female.[18]
The second component of Boswell's argument entails the usage of arsenokoitai in the first two or three centuries of the church. He contends that this term is never used by the patristic Greek writers of the early church.[19] He supports this with the further claim that from the time of the apostle Paul in the first century until Aquinas in the thirteenth century I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 played no role in the development of Christian European attitudes toward homosexuality.[20]
Evaluation
David F. Wright has presented a devastating critique of Boswell's linguistic arguments. He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere. That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.[21] This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.[22] Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes "'male homosexual activity' without qualification."[23]
Wright also surveys the use of arsenokoites, as well as arsenokoiteo and arsenokoitia, in the patristic literature.[24] Not only does his survey find that church fathers from Eusebius to Chrysostom use these terms to condemn male homosexual activity, but he also discovers numerous appeals to I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 for the same purposes.[25] This certainly undermines Boswell's claims concerning the early church. And it calls into question his scholarly ability, if not his scholarly integrity.[26]
Another element in Boswell's argument is his claim that no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as having authority in condemning homosexual acts.[27] Wright points out that it is precisely this claim that prevents Boswell from seeing the Septuagint translation of these two verses as the probably source of arsenokites and related terms.[28] The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:
Lev. 18:22 - [size=+1]μετα αρσενος ου κοιμεθεσε κοιτεν γυναικος[/size]
Lev. 20:13 - [size=+1]ος αν κοιμεθε μετα αρσενος κοιτεν γυναικος[/size]
The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai.[29] Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion[30] is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning. [31]
2. BIBLICAL AUTHORS LIMITED BY THEIR SOCIAL HORIZON
* * *
A. Prohibitions Confined to Idolatrous and Cultic Practices
* * *
B. Prohibitions Confined to Pederasty
* * *
3. PROHIBITION IS CONDITIONED BY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING
* * *
A. Israel's Need for Population Growth
* * *
B. Failure to Understand "Natural" Homosexuality
* * *
4. APPEAL TO SCIENCE AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
* * *
CONCLUSION
It is my conclusion that the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail. They fail, not because an evangelical view of the authority of the Bible dismisses them a priori, but because they do not make their case on their own grounds. An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.
http://trinitysem.edu/journal/journalmain.html