Arsenokoites

[TheGMan]

In any case, I think that the original statement that...

Anyone who claims a¹rsenokoiðthv (arsenokoites) does not refer to homoeroticism is either ignorant/deluded or prevaricating; there is no other alternative.

...has by now been soundly refuted. Not to say that it couldn't mean this but there are certainly alternatives and it is far from clear that these are unlikely.

 

[Brennin]

In any case, I think that the original statement that...



...has by now been soundly refuted. Not to say that it couldn't mean this but there are certainly alternatives and it is far from clear that these are unlikely.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I stand by that statement.

 

[TheGMan]

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I stand by that statement.

And you are of course welcome to your opinion but one feels it would carry more weight if you were actually prepared to address some of the arguments against it.

 

[Brennin]

And you are of course welcome to your opinion but one feels it would carry more weight if you were actually prepared to address some of the arguments against it.

The only "critic" who has raised anything approaching a salient point is you.

 

[TheGMan]

The only "critic" who has raised anything approaching a salient point is you.

I don't think that's quite true. Others have quoted scholars who have argued that it means something other than simply "male-male relations". But you are arguing that such a position is intellectually unsustainable. That places the onus on you not only to show that some scholars agree with your interpretation of the phrase but that the scholars who do not are demonstrably mistaken or being intellectually dishonest. And I think you are a long way short of showing that. The point is not that your interpretation is demonstrably wrong but that the word is controversial and, now, ambiguous. It is for you to demonstrate that it is not.

For what it is worth, I agree that your interpretation is the most likely but I feel that the issue a long way shy of clear cut and I certainly wouldn't be swift to level a charge of intellectual dishonesty at someone who felt it should be interpreted differently.

 

[Ananel]

Brennin,

We will begin simply, on a basic point. If needs be, we will get into the finer details of proper hermeneutical principles and methods of interpretation and translation, and the appropriateness of root word interpretation from texts such as Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. If our conversation continues, we can depart into the matter of the actual usage of the text, at which point I will be drawing on Dr. Martin's ample discussion of the actual contents of various apostolic uses of this rare word.

On your style of discourse:
I would like to note that you chose simply to flat discount the discourse of Dr. Dale Martin, a Yale professor on this subject. I believe that was page 2 or 3. I do not recall if it was precisely specified for you who the gentleman was, but here is a basic bit of his history from Yale's webpage, http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/aboutfaculty.html#Dale You are not entitled to merely discount a professor or scholar out of hand with statements such as "Who is this, that I should listen to them" merely because they disagree with you. Salient information was presented against your case, and you refused to even address it, merely flinging the author away as one unworthy of note. Such is not your right or privilege. I permit the scholarship of men such as Robert Gagnon and welcome it for matters that I will gladly respond to. I would gladly face these men, and you will not be permitted to toss one side or the other away at your leisure merely for their disagreements. A scholar is a scholar in this field, and you will adress the scholarship when you speak in future, not say "Who is this, that I need listen to them?"

Now, as to my point:
Your interpretation of arsenokoites is held by the majority, but is by no means the sole interpretation. Let us cite one of the two examples of the use of the word, as translated in 1 Timothy 1:10 by the NIV,
"for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

The term that you are looking for is 'perverts,' and is a translation of the word arsenokoites, as seen in the 1881 Westcott-Hort,
"πορνοις αρσενοκοιταις ανδραποδισταις ψευσταις επιορκοις και ει τι ετερον τη υγιαινουση διδασκαλια αντικειται"

(both of the above come to us care of Bible Gateway, a most useful and laudable website.)

It is curious to note that arsenokoites is here translated as pervert (if you truly need me to pull up the NIV exegetical analysis, I will do so. Adulterer or Pervert makes little difference. Neither term refers directly to homosexuality). In point of fact, your cited markers of the use of Arsen and Koites as separate terms would indicate that this translation of arsenokoites "One who sleeps with a man," or "A pervert" is quite plausible, making no direct indication of the sex of the perpetrator. By sheer root-study, male-male interaction is not a given in the text, and the NIV translation may be used as evidence of this case (ignoring the blatant root fallacy present in any view of the translation of the word based solely upon its roots. "Root Fallacy," pp. 28-32, D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies.).

 

[Brennin]

On your style of discourse:
I would like to note that you chose simply to flat discount the discourse of Dr. Dale Martin, a Yale professor on this subject.

Correct.

I believe that was page 2 or 3. I do not recall if it was precisely specified for you who the gentleman was, but here is a basic bit of his history from Yale's webpage, http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/aboutfaculty.html#Dale

I already looked him up (and sent him an e-mail).

You are not entitled to merely discount a professor or scholar out of hand with statements such as "Who is this, that I should listen to them" merely because they disagree with you. Salient information was presented against your case, and you refused to even address it, merely flinging the author away as one unworthy of note. Such is not your right or privilege.

It is both my right and privilege.

...you will not be permitted to toss one side or the other away at your leisure merely for their disagreements. A scholar is a scholar in this field, and you will adress the scholarship when you speak in future, not say "Who is this, that I need listen to them?"

You are not imperator and I do not take orders from you. Is that clear?

Now, if you wish to approach me again sans imperiousness you are welcome to do so.

 

[SimplyMe]

Now, if you wish to approach me again sans imperiousness you are welcome to do so.

This is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Ananel]

Learned commentaries? I do not think so. Commentaries with an agenda is more like it.

Insinuations regarding unspecified commentaries of academics in the field do not a defense make. If you choose the battleground and personally select whether or not an opponent is allowed to use X commentator based upon whether or not they agree with you, your victory is assured, hollow as it may be.

Oh, and I did want to mention that your jab at the man back a page or two before this (from page 4) about "Under + Stand" and this being a greek discussion demonstrates that you are incapable of accepting an english illustration of a greek exegetical fallacy that can be found in standard textbooks on the subject, such as D. A. Carson's.

 

[Brennin]

This is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I am disdainful and dismissive of certain posters (with justification) but I do not recall ordering them around; that's the difference.

 

[Brennin]

Oh, and I did want to mention that your jab at the man back a page or two before this (from page 4) about "Under + Stand" and this being a greek discussion demonstrates that you are incapable of accepting an english illustration of a greek exegetical fallacy that can be found in standard textbooks on the subject, such as D. A. Carson's.

That is correct. Make recourse to Ancient Greek or not at all.

 

[Ananel]

You are not imperator and I do not take orders from you. Is that clear?

Now, if you wish to approach me again sans imperiousness you are welcome to do so.

You are also not above reproach, and neither of us have presented our personal credentials, nor will I for one. Without said credentials, we may not ip so facto remove scholars. Robert Gagnon, a noted authority on sexual ethics who is in favor of your position regarding the proper translation of the term arsenokoites, author of one half of The Bible and Homosexuality-Two Views may be found to often cite his opponents and respond directly to them. I happen to disagree with he and men such as Dr. Hayes quite stringently, but I appreciate their willingness to face their opposition head on. He takes a full discourse of responses to Dr. Dan Via's commentary on the subject and marks his own grievances with that particular commentator.

Robert Gagnon is unquestionably one of your strongest supporters in this field, a literal giant (if grotesquely obsessed with the subject) in the subject matter and one of the primary speakers among thinkers. He does not view himself above responding to Dr. Martin.

Who are you, to think that you have said right?

I would also note, good sir, that you did not respond to a thing that was said regarding the hard work of the esteemed scholars who translated the NIV. It would appear that you feel yourself above these as well? Or, am I mistaken?

 

[Ananel]

That is correct. Make recourse to Ancient Greek or not at all.

I expect all future responses to be written in grammatically correct koine greek.

Even the PhDs write in english, Brennin, and the pastors on Sundays preach from an english bible. Your demand is inappropriate.

 

[Brennin]

Who are you, to think that you have said right?

Someone who knows b.s. when he encounters it.

I would also note, good sir, that you did not respond to a thing that was said regarding the hard work of the esteemed scholars who translated the NIV. It would appear that you feel yourself above these as well? Or, am I mistaken?

The NIV is not my translation of choice.

 

[SimplyMe]

I am disdainful and dismissive of certain posters (with justification) but I do not recall ordering them around; that's the difference.

While you may not have ordered people around, you have set yourself up as the final arbitor of logic and ancient Greek scholoarship. For example:

Anyone who claims a¹rsenokoiðthv (arsenokoites) does not refer to homoeroticism is either ignorant/deluded or prevaricating; there is no other alternative.

Learned commentaries? I do not think so.

Wrong.

There are other examples but those should suffice.

Though, actually, you have ordered people about:

This discussion requires knowledge of Ancient Greek, not English. If you do not know Ancient Greek then do not let the thread's doorknob hit you on the way out.

Either way, it shows imperiousness.

 

[Ananel]

The NIV is not my translation of choice.

This does not invalidate their work, scholarship or life's effort. Justify your invalidation of said work, and not merely upon your personal preferences.

 

[Brennin]

Though, actually, you have ordered people about:

This discussion requires knowledge of Ancient Greek, not English. If you do not know Ancient Greek then do not let the thread's doorknob hit you on the way out.

Yeah, I guess that was something of a dictum.

 

[Ananel]

Let us discuss the topic of root fallacies in a bit more detail, to understand the nature of an argument that makes use of "Under + stand" as a simplified heurestic for teaching.

1. The Root Fallacy
One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because of the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostellw (I send) the root meaning of "Apostle" is "one who is sent?" In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapaw (to love), contrast it with philew (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something abuot a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapaw is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thiselton offers by way of example, our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." Our "good-bye" is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon "God be with you." Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nescius generated "nice"; it is certainly easy to imagine how "God be with you" came to be contracted as "Good-bye." But I know of no one today who in saying such and such a person is "nice" believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the "root meaning" or "hidden meaning" or "literal meaning" of "nice" is "ignorant."

(D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Books, 1996)

Root word analysis is insufficient. Were you to present the case that arsen and koites were present in the septuagint translation of the two passages from Leviticus 18 and 20, you would be correct, and correct in saying that the two were placed in the order of arsen koites in Leviticus 20 specifically. However, without further etymological evidence of this coincidence leading to the formation (possibly by Paul himself) of the word arsenokoites, the etymological link is specious at best, comparable to the examples above. Furthermore, you would be faced with the examples of usage that indicate variable meanings leaning towards sins with both sexual and economic connotations, as indicated by Dr. Martin in the following excerpt from an article of his.

One of the earliest appearances of the word (here the verb) occurs in Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 Although the date of this section of the oracle — indeed, of the finished oracle itself — is uncertain, there is no reason to take the text as dependent on Paul or the New Testament. The oracle probably provides an independent use of the word. It occurs in a section listing acts of economic injustice and exploitation; in fact, the editors of the English translation here quoted (J. J. Collins) label the section "On Justice":

(Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.
Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)
Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

​

The term occurs in a list of what we might call "economic sins," actions related to economic injustice or exploitation: accepting gifts from unjust sources, extortion, withholding wages, oppressing the poor. "Stealing seeds" probably refers to the hoarding of grain; in the ancient world, the poor often accused the rich of withholding grain from the market as a price-fixing strategy.11 I would argue that other sins here mentioned that have no necessary economic connotation probably do here. Thus the references to speech and keeping secrets may connote the use of information for unjust gain, like fraud, extortion, or blackmail; and "murder" here may hint at motivations of economic gain, recalling, for example, the murder of Naboth by Jezebel (1 Kings 21). In any case, no other term in the section refers to sex. Indeed, nothing in the context (including what precedes and follows this quotation) suggests that a sexual action in general is being referred to at all. If we take the context as indicating the meaning, we should assume that arsenokoitein here refers to some kind of economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort.

http: www. clgs. org /5/5_4_3.html
(Link altered, with spaces blocking direct linking, as website is a gay research website. If the citation with website listing is against forum rules, I will remove it. The webpage is clean, but is not kosher according to traditional or orthodox Christian theology. It was chosen only to cite properly the website involved.)

 

[Brennin]

... Furthermore, you would be faced with the examples of usage that indicate variable meanings leaning towards sins with both sexual and economic connotations, as indicated by Dr. Martin in the following excerpt from an article of his.

First of all, his citation is incorrect. It is actually Sibylline Oracles 2.83-93:

80 Strike not the scales oneside, but draw them equal.
Forswear not ignorantly nor willingly;
God hates the perjured man in that he swore.
A gift proceeding out of unjust deeds
Never receive in hand. Do not steal seed;
85 Accursed through many generations he
Who took it unto scattering of life.
Indulge not vile lusts, slander not, nor kill.
Give the toilworn his hire; do not afflict
The poor man. Unto orphans help afford
90 And to widows and the needy. Talk with sense;
Hold fast in heart a secret. Be unwilling
To act unjustly nor yet tolerate
Unrighteous men. Give to the poor at once
And say not, "Come to-morrow." Of thy grain
95 Give to the needy with perspiring hand.

Secondly, note the above translation: vile lusts.

Finally, his argument that arsenokoitein must refer to an "economic sin" in this context is nonsense. I remember reading an article by Bart Ehrman bemoaning the inadequate knowledge of Greek among New Testament scholars; it appears that Martin is one of the "scholars" he had in mind.

 

[Brennin]

...For what it is worth, I agree that your interpretation is the most likely but I feel that the issue a long way shy of clear cut and I certainly wouldn't be swift to level a charge of intellectual dishonesty at someone who felt it should be interpreted differently.

Thank you; I appreciate your comment above and I also appreciate your knowledge of Greek.