Homosexual & sodomite: etymology, definition & synonyms

[A.ModerateOne]

The etymology and standard English definitions are from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. For the synonyms the Roget's International Thesaurus, Seventh Edition

"homosexual...a. & n. L19[1870-1899]...A adj. Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex; of, pertaining to, or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex. L19[1870-1899]. B n. A person who is sexually attracted (often exclusively) to people of his or her own sex. E20[1900-1929]"

"sodomite... n. ME[1150-1349] ... Late L. f. Gk Sodomite f. Sodoma Sodom 1 Sodomy. Only in ME[1150-1349]. 2 A person who practises or commits sodomy. LME[1350-1469]."

"sodomy n. ME[1150-1349]. [med.L sodomia, f. eccl.L peccatum Sodommiticum sin of Sodom... Any form of sexual intercourse with a person of the same or opposite sex, except copulation; spec. anal intercourse. Also, inappropriate behavior with animals."

The word "homosexual" is not found in the KJV, ASV, RSV(1971) or the NRSV. The word "sodomite(s)" is found 5 times in the KJV: Dt. 23:17; 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2Kgs 23:7 but the KJV does not use the word anywhere in the New Testament.

The word "sodomites" is found 2 times in the NRSV, 1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10 but is not found anywhere in the Old Testament of the NRSV.

The synonyms in their context from the Roget's:

Page 60 Sect. 75.14 "homosexual" gay person, homosexualist, homophile, invert;"

Page 60 Sect. 75.16 "sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf> , bugger, pederast"

The word "sodomite(s)" in the KJV is defined by the BDB thus:

Strong's H6945 qâdêsh
1) male temple prostitute
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H6942

Strong's H6942 qâdash
BDB Definition:
1) to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate

The confusion and uncertainty about the word "homosexual" in the NASB & NKJV demonstrates the problem of being dogmatic here for malakos & arsenokoites and I'll demonstrate by the pertinent phrase from the two translations:
NASB - "nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" here arsenokoites is translated as "homosexuals".
NKJV - "nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" here malakos is translated as "homosexuals".

The English words "sodomites" and "homosexuals" did not exist in the times of the Bible as can be seen above in the etymology. The two words are NOT synonymous. Spending a lot of time researching this verse, it seems that the NIV Greek-English Interlinear literal translation of "nor voluptuous persons, nor sodomites" is close, keeping in mind today's meaning of "sodomite" as seen in the Roget's quoted above. In similar translation, the New Jerusalem Bible translates these as "the self-indulgent, sodomites".

The Greek word malakos occurs 3 other times apart from 1 Co. 6:9 and it is not in anyway used in a sexual context:

But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? behold, they that wear soft(malakos) clothing are in kings' houses. (Matt 11:8, KJV)
But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. (Luke 7:25, KJV)

From Heinrich Meyer's commentary on this verse:

"μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers. Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν, Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς, iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία, Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

 

[Dave-W]

English words mean nothing. YOu need to look up the words in the original languages. And Strongs is not always sufficient.

 

[Dave-W]

The English words "sodomites" and "homosexuals" did not exist in the times of the Bible

Obviously, since English did not exist for at least another 1000 years after the bible was completed.

 

[Dave-W]

The confusion and uncertainty about the word "homosexual" in the NASB & NKJV demonstrates the problem of being dogmatic here for malakos & arsenokoites and I'll demonstrate by the pertinent phrase from the two translations:

Christian Greek "scholars" and "experts" have had a difficult time with those 2 words since they are fighting 1800 years of christian theology layered on top of the actual usage of the words. Derek Prince (of blessed memory) became a Greek scholar apart from Christian academia. He taught the Greek philosophers (in greek) at the graduate level Cambridge University before WW2 and before becoming a believer. So he had a different and more common to the language grasp of the words.

He said the 2 were descriptive of the 2 sides of Greek homosexual relationships, the more aggressive partner and the more passive partner.

 

[A.ModerateOne]

Christian Greek "scholars" and "experts" have had a difficult time with those 2 words since they are fighting 1800 years of christian theology layered on top of the actual usage of the words. Derek Prince (of blessed memory) became a Greek scholar apart from Christian academia. He taught the Greek philosophers (in greek) at the graduate level Cambridge University before WW2 and before becoming a believer. So he had a different and more common to the language grasp of the words.

He said the 2 were descriptive of the 2 sides of Greek homosexual relationships, the more aggressive partner and the more passive partner.

"English words mean nothing"? Our English versions are in English and most people have the mistaken idea that "homosexual" and "sodomite" are synonymous, which they are not. The word "sodomite" is not the old fashioned Biblical word for "homosexual" as I've seen stated by many Christians through the years.

I did not quote anything from the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary except for the numbering system. I quoted from the following:

"Brown–Driver–Briggs or BDB (from the name of its three authors) is a standard reference for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic,[1] first published in 1906. It is organized by (Hebrew) alphabetical order of three letter roots. It was based on the Hebrew-German lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius, translated by Edward Robinson. The chief editor was Francis Brown, with the co-operation of Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, hence the name Brown–Driver–Briggs. Some modern printings have added the Strong's reference numbers for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic words." Wikipedia

I use the standard Christian resources and accepted authorities such as the BDB, Heinrich Meyer, AMGL, BDAG, including Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, etc.; plus my own word studies of the original Hebrew or Greek as found in various places in Scripture. I'd never heard of Derek Prince and after doing an online search, I'll pass on consulting any of his writings. I am not a Christian Zionist, Pentecostal or Charismatic.

 

[Dave-W]

I'd never heard of Derek Prince and after doing an online search,

Did your research include his pre-war academic credentials?

 

[A.ModerateOne]

Did your research include his pre-war academic credentials?

No, I am a New Covenant believer, not an Old Covenant Israelite. If you are accurate in your quote: "As Derek Prince used to say: 'Take the Sabbath, or the Sabbath will take you.' Deut 4:2" I know I'd not trust anything he wrote. Sorry... that is not for me. Jesus Christ NOWHERE commanded me to observe the 7th day Sabbath. I am Particular Baptist and agree with the following statement from the conclusion of the First London Confession of Faith:

"If any man shall impose upon us anything that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His strength rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stripped of all outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than to do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God or against the light of our own consciences."

 

[hedrick]

For the sake of anyone looking in, this thread is talking about 1 Cor 6:9, which is variously translating as condemning homosexuals, male prostitutes, etc. The two Greek words are μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης.

Unless we find contemporary usage of ἀρσενοκοίτης, this is conjecture. The term wasn't used before Paul and is rare since, so translators are guessing. The translation homosexual is based on the fact that the word seems to be a compound of "male" and "beds," and looks like a reference to Lev 20:13. Certainly the similarity to Lev 20:13 is interesting
Leviticus 20:13 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear
But while άρσενος and κοίτην are adjacent in the LXX, they aren't a single phrase. That is, άρσενος is at the end of one phrase and κοίτην the beginning of another. This matters, because the usual argument is that Paul's readers would have taken the word as a reference to Lev 20:13. If they had been used together that might be true, but they weren't. Most likely, this was a slang term that his readers would know, but we don't.

It's been translated in varying fashions over the years. Other plausible suggestions are male prostitution and temple prostitution (based on a suggestion by Philo for the meaning of the passages in Leviticus). It's really dangerous to base your understanding of a word on what its roots are. You need to see actual use, and we're stuck there. During the Reformation period it was apparently considered to mean masturbation, though I'm finding it hard to get documentation for that. Luther's Bible translated it as boy molesters.

Similarly, it's far from clear that μαλακός is being used of sex.There was a good discussion of that above.

Many scholars recently have taken the two words as referring to active and passive partners in gay sex ("top" and "bottom"). In the 1st Cent these roles were treated different ethically. It was considered sort of OK for an adult to be a top, but highly immoral to be a bottom. The bottom had to be a slave or a young person. This is an interesting conjecture, but I don't see any real basis in the text. If true, however, it would support the idea that Paul was thinking of abusive forms of homosexuality.

My own translation would probably be voluptuous persons and male prostitutes. However some of Paul's congregation most likely were slaves, and they might well have been victims of sexual abuse by masters. It's certainly plausible that he would have condemned that. I'm just not sure this passage does it.

But I wonder how useful the debate is. Literalists will stick with their traditional understanding no matter what we say, and whatever Paul meant, it's surely unlikely that he had either the knowledge or intention of dealing with the modern issue of homosexuality.

 

[bekkilyn]

But I wonder how useful the debate is. Literalists will stick with their traditional understanding no matter what we say, and whatever Paul meant, it's surely unlikely that he had either the knowledge or intention of dealing with the modern issue of homosexuality.

Much of the reason why I get involved in these sorts of debates is to demonstrate that not all of Christianity thinks exactly the same on every topic, shocking to some as it may be. I've come across far too many cases where someone will produce pages of thoughtful discussion (and I'm not talking about my own posts here), backed up with scripture that includes the original languages as a basis only to be met with something to the effect of "nuh uh, you're wrong" or some sort of deflection from the actual point being made, and then perhaps an extremely predictable verse or two of cherry-picked, out-of-context scripture thrown in for good measure. And then when they can't come up with any real response will again (very predictably) post something to the effect of, "the bible is very clear as to what it says here" and then get offended and claim that they're being attacked, which then pretty much ends the non-discussion in the first place. I can almost write word-for-word how it will all go beforehand.

 

[SkyWriting]

and then perhaps an extremely predictable verse or two of cherry-picked, out-of-context scripture thrown in for good measure.

The New Testament is packed nearly solid with an extremely predictable verse or two of cherry-picked, out-of-context scripture thrown in for good measure.

That's the central structure of the New Testament.

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English

 

[SkyWriting]

"homosexual..[1870-1899]

The first use of the word was in 1868.

 

[pescador]

The New Testament is packed nearly solid with an extremely predictable verse or two of cherry-picked, out-of-context scripture thrown in for good measure.

That's the central structure of the New Testament.

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English

And your authority for saying this is..?

Know that many millions of people see things very, very differently

 

[pescador]

The first use of the word was in 1868.

And your source is..?

 

[SkyWriting]

Know that many millions of people see things very, very differently

And your authority-source on this is......?

 

[pescador]

And your authority-source on this is......?

Years and years of being a God-fearing, observant Christian, who does not make outrageous statements to make myself appear to be smart.

 

[SkyWriting]

Years and years of being a God-fearing, observant Christian, who does not make outrageous statements to make myself appear to be smart.

I'm a college trained information researcher.
I research with Google most often these days.
I can't manage the time to locate the original date I found.

homosexual (adj.)

First found in:
1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from German homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from Greek homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual.

'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. 'Homogenic' has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]
Sexual inversion (1883, later simply inversion, by 1895) was an earlier clinical term for "homosexuality" in English, said by Ellis to have originated in Italian psychology writing. See also uranian. Unnatural love was used 18c.-19c. for homosexuality as well as pederasty and incest. In 17c.-18c., pathic was used as a noun and adjective in reference to a man that submits to sexual intercourse with another man. Related: Homosexually.

homosexual | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[hedrick]

I've reconsidered my post above. In it I noted that in the 1st Cent, "tops" could be free men, but "bottoms" were supposed to be slaves and youth.

This has implications for understanding what Paul meant. Current evangelical views seem to be that μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης are both references to same-gender sex, and thus Paul is condemning all same-gender sex, whether top or bottom. But I think this view presents ethical problems.

Bottoms would have had little recourse. Slaves had to submit, and it doesn't appear from what's known, that the youth had much choice either. The old view that it was a positive relationship in which the adult acted as kindly mentor now appear to have been highly idealized.

It's generally assumed that many of Paul's converts were slaves. Some of them would have been on the receiving end of this, and others were likely threatened with it, or knew people who had experienced it. How likely is it that Paul would actually have condemned these people?

I very much doubt that μαλακός referred to same-gender sex. Of course I doubt that as well for ἀρσενοκοίτης, for reasons given above. But μαλακός seem particularly unlikely. Unless you want to assume that Paul would condemn victims.

I admit that our commitment to explicit consent for sex, and our understanding of just how easy it is for that not to be present, are largely modern. It's possible that Paul didn't share this approach, and that he actually would do something that today would be viewed as condemning victims. But I still hope that's not the case.

 

[East of Eden]

The first use of the word was in 1868.

Even if so, irrelevant, the sin has been around since Sodom.

 

[A.ModerateOne]

Even if so, irrelevant, the sin has been around since Sodom.

You're absolutely correct! I agree, as the Scriptures tell us:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50 KJV)

In Ezekiel, 41 verses contain the Hebrew, Strong's #H8441 תּוֹעֵבַה tow`ebah, translated "abomination(s)"; more than any other OT book. It overwhelmingly refers to things connected to idolatry in Ezekiel. Paul let's us know covetousness is idolatry (Col.3:5) so it has existed in all ages, including today.

"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isa 3:9-12 KJV)

That really does describe today for sure! Then, from the KJV Apocrypha, not inspired; but showing what the Jews in the centuries just before Christ thought the sin of Sodom was:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

 

[East of Eden]

You're absolutely correct! I agree, as the Scriptures tell us:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50 KJV)

In Ezekiel, 41 verses contain the Hebrew, Strong's #H8441 תּוֹעֵבַה tow`ebah, translated "abomination(s)"; more than any other OT book. It overwhelmingly refers to things connected to idolatry in Ezekiel. Paul let's us know covetousness is idolatry (Col.3:5) so it has existed in all ages, including today.

"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isa 3:9-12 KJV)

That really does describe today for sure! Then, from the KJV Apocrypha, not inspired; but showing what the Jews in the centuries just before Christ thought the sin of Sodom was:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

OK, but you left out the sin of homosexual activity, which was condemned throughout the Bible and uniformly throughout most of church history.