Arsenokoites

[Ananel]

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.

Thank you for clarifying the typo in Martin's article It is 2:80-87, not 2:70-77.

1) it would seem that you take a particular translation of english as the meaning of the word immediately, whereas the contention of Martin's choice of citation with "Do not arsenokoites" was to indicate the term in its context. Merely accepting a particular translation does not negate your opponent's argument regarding context.

2) "Vile Lusts" would fit "pervert," if we were to take it, strengthening the claim that arsenokoites is not specifically homosexual in condemnation, but adultery-related.

3) The argument that it is surrounded by economic sins here is quite accurate. Allow me to list them from the above citation for you, "slander not, nor kill. Give the toilworn his hire; do not afflict
The poor man. Unto orphans help afford And to widows and the needy" These are the immediately following set of comments. Not one of these regards sexual sins. I would yield that "Economic" is a poor choice of words on Martin's part, but his contention that vice lists group sins together by type is consistent with their nature.

As others have noted, vice lists are sometimes organized into groups of "sins," with sins put together that have something to do with one another. (9) First are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics or injustice. Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoités in different vice lists, I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse — that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia) — but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation. Though this provides little to go on, I suggest that a careful analysis of the actual context of the use of arsenokoités, free from linguistically specious arguments from etymology or the word's separate parts, indicates that arsenokoités had a more specific meaning in Greco-Roman culture than homosexual penetration in general, a meaning that is now lost to us. It seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex.

From the above cited article.
(9) Anton Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (Miinster: Aschendorffschen Buckdrockerei, 1936), 13-18; for comparative texts, see Ehrhard Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Parades imp Neon Testament (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964).

The argument that vice lists present their vices in the biblical and extrabiblical texts in this grouped fashion is not a particularly new one. The list of sins of the Sybilline Oracle? They relate to theft, deceit, trickery, slander, etc... and not one of these relates to sexual sins. You do not begin to see extensive discourse on lusts until 165+. The only possible comment is on 'virgin purity' and would strengthen a claim that arsenokoites here is related to adultery, which as the breaking of contract would fit among the various sins listed here. Violence, hate, deceit, theft. These are the sins listed for well over 80 verses. No serious consideration of sex, and one little use of arsenokoites. From this? Vile Lusts. Must be related specifically to gay sex.

That's a stretch. Since you seem capable of citing the oracle, I'm sure you don't need this link, but others might: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib.pdf Go to the second book, beginning at line 80. The term "Vile Lusts" is where is found Martin's translation "Do not arsenokoites"

Perhaps economics are an oversimplification, but I see a very long list of sins that have next to nothing to do with gay sex surrounding arsenokoites and a common and justified view that sin lists are themed. Dr. Martin has a point, and you choose to ignore it in favor of a particular translation, citing it as automatically correct and unquestionable.

 

[Ananel]

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.

This specifically deserves comment. Merely citing Bart Ehrmen's homepage and saying "I remember reading an article" by him does not even remotely qualify as a serious response. This is not the article itself. We have no way of knowing precisely why Bart Ehrmen was concerned with inadequate knowledge of greek. Was it concerning Dr. John Boswell's assessments of the usage of arsenokoites in the 80s? Or, was it a general theme that Dr. Ehrmen saw as present in his time, one of poor scholarship?

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartCV.htm

Looking over the rather extensive writing list, it seems that Dr. Ehrmen is concerned heavily with textual criticism and with the use of patristic writings in interpreting Scripture, along with general transmission of data through translation. He seems to have a strong focus on apologetics against the textual critical school.

You'll note, if you look over that list, that none of those articles seem even remotely tied to our discussion here. I have done a bit of a quick search, looking for your article. I believe that the article in question is possibly found in here, http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/ref=/602-8441326-7606214?%5Fencoding=UTF8&frombrowse=1&asin=0060738170

It is also possible that the text is from http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/l/lost-christianities.shtml or some other text. These are the books that come up most often with google searches for Dr. Ehrmen's name and his associations with the homosexuality/Christianity debate. However, based upon the topic matter involved here, I am sorely inclined to think that you may have done a small abuse to Dr. Ehrmen here. This does not appear to be his field of study. Better to have stuck to Dr. Gagnon or Dr. Hayes. They say similar polemics, and they stay on topic. Perhaps even Gene Veith would have been appropriate. I seem to recall him saying something on the subject as well, and being on subject, though in a more polemical and systematic fashion. The man's no exegete.

Furthermore, how do you directly tie-in Dr. Martin's assessment of the sybilline oracle to Dr. Ehrmen's bemoaning of poor biblical scholarship? On what grounds? A typo? Even the best editors miss typos now and again, and citations are notoriously bad in this. We were able to verify which verses were involved, so it wasn't a significant issue. The text was cited correctly and translated accurately, with the exception that arsenokoites was left untranslated to reflect the reader on the surrounding context. A 7 was simply replaced with an 8.

 

[brightmorningstar]

There is no doubt that arsen=male/men and koites= bed/sex fam.
There is no scripture to justify same-sex sex, Christians should avoid discussing it with people who simply haven’t got anything to support their own argument.
Jesus describes marriage and the breaking of marriage by unfaithfulness in sexual immorality (pornos). Matt 19. Mark 10. Jesus teaching also countenances celibacy Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. Jesus teaching condemns adultery (moichos) and sexual immorality (pornos) Matt 15, Mark 7. One doesn’t even need to look at 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim and Rom 1. And yet if we do we see condemned pornos and arsenkoites and moichos.

There is no argument, that’s why the issue is so fiercely debated, same-sex sex is for Christians a wrong, to suggest otherwise is a lie.

 

[brightmorningstar]

There is no doubt that arsen=male/men and koites= bed/sex fam.
There is no scripture to justify same-sex sex, Christians should avoid discussing it with people who simply haven’t got anything to support their own argument.
Jesus describes marriage and the breaking of marriage by unfaithfulness in sexual immorality (pornos). Matt 19. Mark 10. Jesus teaching also countenances celibacy Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. Jesus teaching condemns adultery (moichos) and sexual immorality (pornos) Matt 15, Mark 7. One doesn’t even need to look at 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim and Rom 1. And yet if we do we see condemned pornos and arsenkoites and moichos.

There is no argument, that’s why the issue is so fiercely debated, same-sex sex is for Christians a wrong, to suggest otherwise is a lie.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

There is no doubt that arsen=male/men and koites= bed/sex fam.
There is no scripture to justify same-sex sex, Christians should avoid discussing it with people who simply haven’t got anything to support their own argument.
Jesus describes marriage and the breaking of marriage by unfaithfulness in sexual immorality (pornos). Matt 19. Mark 10. Jesus teaching also countenances celibacy Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. Jesus teaching condemns adultery (moichos) and sexual immorality (pornos) Matt 15, Mark 7. One doesn’t even need to look at 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim and Rom 1. And yet if we do we see condemned pornos and arsenkoites and moichos.

There is no argument, that’s why the issue is so fiercely debated, same-sex sex is for Christians a wrong, to suggest otherwise is a lie.

Consider ladykiller. Judging from the root words, it would mean one who kills ladies. Instead, it means someone who is good at wooing them. Consider homophobia. Judging from the root words, it would mean fear of the same. Again, this meaning is wrong. The roots of a word are not definitive in determining meaning.

 

[levi501]

There is no argument, that’s why the issue is so fiercely debated...

yah, that makes sense..

 

[Brennin]

Consider ladykiller. Judging from the root words, it would mean one who kills ladies. Instead, it means someone who is good at wooing them. Consider homophobia. Judging from the root words, it would mean fear of the same. Again, this meaning is wrong. The roots of a word are not definitive in determining meaning.

Feel free to ignore illustrations from another language removed by 2000 years and several Indo-European branches; I certainly do.

 

[Brennin]

...There is no argument...

That is correct.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Feel free to ignore illustrations from another language removed by 2000 years and several Indo-European branches; I certainly do.

Are you saying that the meanings of all Greek words are completely discernable from their root words?

 

[Brennin]

Are you saying that the meanings of all Greek words are completely discernable from their root words?

No but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I believe that is how Ancient Greek compound words should be interpreted.

 

[outlaw]

No but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I believe that is how Ancient Greek compound words should be interpreted.

So you are (finally) saying that not all compound words in ancient Greek derive their meaning from their component words.

Wonderful

Now… in the absence of compelling evidence why should the meaning of the word arsenokoites be derive their meaning from its component words?

 

[Ananel]

No but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I believe that is how Ancient Greek compound words should be interpreted.

And, it seems, you feel free to determine what evidence is admissible. Evidence has been presented of the root fallacy present in your exegetical pronouncements, and the best defense you have managed to mount was to complain that a typo occured in the editting of a citation, to vaguely mention a Dr's name as having complained of poor exegetes in the current era and declare by fiat your opposition to be "Nonsense."

Pray tell, Brennin, what qualifies as "Compelling evidence?" You've offered no evidence of how the abuse of etymology as determining purpose and meaning is appropriate in either english or koine greek, and standard textbooks such as Carson's speak against your position. You've offered no evidence from the segment of major exegetes who oppose the view that vice lists are themed (they do exist.), or even evidence against this usage of a more general sense. Therefore, there still remains the fact that vice lists are still viewed by some major scholars such as Martin as being themed. "Economic" may be a poor choice of words on the doctor's part, but the fact remains that sexual sins are not illustrated in the list of the Sybilline Oracle 2:80-165. Arsenokoites is the only one in that long list of vices, and the only possible one occurs around 70, and is so highly generic as to be barely related. The list has "Do not arsenokoiten," and that alone in the midst of over 80 verses of vice lists.

And you expect this list, concentrated as it is on fraud, deceit and violence, happens to have a quick condemnation "oh, and don't be gay" in the middle of these condemnations of unrelated crimes? Even were vice lists not themed in a strong hermeneutical sense, you're stretching a man's imagination to turn arsenokoites into anything more specific than "Vile Lust," which would be applicable to "pervert" in the NIV translation of 1 Timothy 1:10. Your choice of translations names you false in using this as a sign of arsenokoites as homosexual offender, and the series of examples of its usage listed by Dr. Martin make your case far less tenable than you would like to admit.

Is "Nonsense" truly the best you can manage, brother?

 

[Ananel]

So you are (finally) saying that not all compound words in ancient Greek derive their meaning from their component words.

Wonderful

Now… in the absence of compelling evidence why should the meaning of the word arsenokoites be derive their meaning from its component words?

I for one am not inclined to do so. D. A. Carson and every exegetical and hermeneutical analysis of proper word studies I have ever read condemns the practice of root fallacies. It is considered sloppy exegesis.

I have known some of these men to make specific exceptions for arsenokoites. I have a professor of mine who did so, and I Dr. Gagnon often does. However, without compelling evidence in either etymological studies (beyond root word meaning) or form study, I do not view the meaning of the word as being clear in the slightest. I am inclined to say "Pederast," but there is another greek word for this. "Pervert" may be appropriate, as might "Adulterer," based merely upon the etymology, but I find the word too unclear for decisive translation.

 

[Ananel]

Feel free to ignore illustrations from another language removed by 2000 years and several Indo-European branches; I certainly do.

Need I remind you that it is not appropriate to discount english illustrations? Dr. Carson's explanations demonstrate that these english illustrations appropriately show the problem that also exists in koine greek. Usage of etymology, specifically root word studies, to determine word meaning in a specific time period remains as false in koine greek study as it would be in english.

Still, here's one of the greek illustrations of the problem that you had chosen to ignore, "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?" " - D. A. Carson Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28. (It goes without saying that Carson's view of this interpretation is one of derision.)

You seem to feel free to ignore not only illustrations from english, but also from koine greek. Such selectivity will ultimately result in accepting no illustrations from any language, so long as they disagree with you.

 

[Orchids]

Given the choice between believing a Greek scholar with years of experience versus taking the word of a high school teacher - I'll take the Greek scholar any day.

 

[Brennin]

Need I remind you that it is not appropriate to discount english illustrations? Dr. Carson's explanations demonstrate that these english illustrations appropriately show the problem that also exists in koine greek. Usage of etymology, specifically root word studies, to determine word meaning in a specific time period remains as false in koine greek study as it would be in english.

Still, here's one of the greek illustrations of the problem that you had chosen to ignore, "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?" " - D. A. Carson Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28. (It goes without saying that Carson's view of this interpretation is one of derision.)

You seem to feel free to ignore not only illustrations from english, but also from koine greek. Such selectivity will ultimately result in accepting no illustrations from any language, so long as they disagree with you.

Note that Carson does not explain why the derivation he dismisses is in error, nor does he offer a derivation of his own. His illustration is, therefore, anything but.

 

[Brennin]

Given the choice between believing a Greek scholar with years of experience versus taking the word of a high school teacher - I'll take the Greek scholar any day.

Who is the high school teacher?

 

[Ananel]

Note that Carson does not explain why the derivation he dismisses is in error, nor does he offer a derivation of his own. His illustration is, therefore, anything but.

You have a funny way of simply dismissing standard exegetical methods, as if your personal word negated the work of the scholars who actually translate the scriptures on your behalf. I'd love to see the citations you back your claims with. I'm kind enough to present mine, but yours? I see none, merely your word on the matter.

I chose not to give a detailed account of a case so as not to saturate this thread with a two-page long exegetical analysis of an unrelated case. I felt that an illustration, in light of the academic evidence presented as a specific case by Dr. Martin, served as evidence. However, you appear to deny even the existence of the root fallacy as an exegetical fallacy, despite its presence within standard texts on translational process. Fine, you desire specific cases of such an error with more detailed analysis? From the same text (Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 29-30):

J. P. Louw provides a fascinating example. In 1 Corinthians 4:1 Paul writes of himself, Cephas, Apollos, and other leaders in these terms: “So then, men ought to regard us as servants (hyperetas) of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God” (NIV). More than a century ago, R. C. Trench popularized the view that hyperetes derives from the verb eresso “to row.” The basic meaning of hyperetes, then, is “rower.” Trench quite explicitly says a hyperetes “was originally the rower (from eresso).” A. T. Robertson and J. B. Hofmann went further and said hyperetes derives morphologically from hypo and eretes. Now eresso means “rower” in Homer (eighth century B.C.!); and Hofmann draws the explicit connection with the morphology, concluding a hyperetes was basically an “under rower” or “assistant rower” or “subordinate rower.” Trench had not gone so far: he did not detect in hypo any notion of subordination. Nevertheless Leon Morris concluded that a hyperetes was “a servant of lowly kind”; and William Barclay plunged further and designated hyperetes as “a rower o the lower bank of a trireme.” Yet the fact remains that with only one possible exception—and it is merely possible, not certain—hyperetes is never used for “rower” in classical literature, and it is certainly not used that way in the New Testament. The hyperetes in the New Testament is a servant, and often there is little if anything to distinguish him from a diakonos. As Louw remarks, to derive the meaning of hyperetes from hypo and eretes is no more intrinsically realistic than deriving the meaning of “butterfly” from “butter” and “fly,” or the meaning of “pineapple” from “pine” and “apple.” Even those of us who have never been to Hawaii recognize that pineapples are not a special kind of apple that grows on pines.

The Root Fallacy is a standard fallacy, known and accepted as a false methodology, unless backed up by evidence other than raw etymology and a person's personal logic. Dr. Martin presents cases of usage that identify arsenokoites as having other uses than would indicate homosexuality itself. The NIV translation of the term in 1 Timothy 1:10 as "pervert" indicates furthermore that many scholars of note agree that its meaning is not 100% as clear from raw etymology.

I have yet to see the source of the etymological case presented by you, namely the fact that arsen and koites are present in Leviticus 18 and 20, and in the latter in that specific order as two separate words. That alone does not present a clear-cut case for etymology obviously indicating clear-cut meaning of the term arsenokoites in later Pauline writings. It would have been nice if you had at least bothered with that albeit shallow addressing of the subject.

Kindly give evidence that the root fallacy is not a real misuse of etymology. There are cases where etymology reflects usage, but etymology does not universally equate with word meaning. The case above illustrates this.

 

[Polycarp1]

Quite a while ago, I asked Brennin to nail down exactly what he thought arsenokoites (or whatever the proper form may be) meant. I believe he took this as pure antagonism to his point, which was not my intent.

I'm firmly convinced that Paul did in fact mean something related to gay sexual acts, and that his coinage of the term was purposeful, i.e., "man-bedding" was an intentional Greek coinage to parallel the Hebrew usage in Leviticus 18:22, which literally translates as "You shall not lie the lyings with a man as the lyings of a woman" or something very close and equally awkward, the two languages' idiomatic constructions getting in the way of an accurate literal rendering.

The issue to me is, what did Paul mean by that usage and why did he send it to the Church in Corinth? Note that he says something a bit different, about unnatural lusts, to the Romans, and never brings up the issue at all to the Philippians or the Colossians.

The answer in my mind is that what God condemns, through Moses's teachings, in Leviticus, is the temple prostitution common in Ba'al worship, where priest or devotee giving temple service engages in anal intercourse with worshipper in a pagan fertility rite. That such events happened and were a part of Ba'alist belief has been documented in Near Eastern archaelogy and cultural studies.

Now, why might this be important in Corinth? Because it was a roaring port city, the point at which goods were transshipped across the Corinthian isthmus to avoid the treacherous coastwise shipping around the Peloponessus. And like many port cities then and now, it had a flourishing "red light district" -- including places where boys were enslaved to function as catamitic prostitutes for clients.

Paul is condemning the use of that practice, and warning the new Christians of the Church he founded there to abstain from such a practice and from socializing with those who did patronize those enslaved boy prostitutes.

Does this have any referent to what goes on today? I'd say absolutely it does; look up the story of one Justin Berry, who recently appeared on Oprah, for a modern-day parallel.

Does Paul's prohibition have anything to do with a loving, committed gay couple, as opposed to idolatry, male prostitution, etc.? Opinions clearly differ, and probably will continue to do so despite what is said here. IMO, that is not what Paul targeted; in Brennin's apparent opinion, it is. But I think we can agree on what specifically Paul condemned, and agree that it is in fact reprehensible in and of itself -- without having to resolve the bigger picture of gay rights vs. traditional Christian condemnation of homosexuality, something sure to be disputed further between Christians no matter what is said here.

 

[Argent]

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