How do you Justify using Leviticus?

[Ananel]

Here are a few more references from the early church fathers showing the early church’s view on homosexuality and pederasty. One wonders why the Bosworths and Martins, etc. can’t seem to find these references when they do their exegeses of “arsenokoites” and “malakos”? Two lists are from Catholic websites, but ten of these I found this afternoon, Clement of Alexandria, Vision of Paul, Theophilus, and Eusebius.

The Didache
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Why?
http://www.supakoo.com/rick/af.asp?af=Did+2.2&lang=both
Because the word in question is παιδοφθορήσεις, not arsenokoites. Paralleomania, case in point, citation of D.A. Carson's explanation of the phenomena in exegetically fallacious word studies on prior page. You say you check these texts to ensure that they apply directly to the word study of arsenokoites and malakos? It took me all of five minutes to find an online collection of the greek of the didache, verify the greek word in question and all of five seconds to pop the location's information into this post. I'll add the rest later today or another day perhaps. As I said, time restraints and what not. However, let this serve as a case reminder for you, odsolo.

The word used here is not arsenokoites. You do not find this in Dale Martin's word study of arsenokoites because this is not arsenokoites, and even from an etymological point of view the term has a different history entirely. Issuing a citation of a random discussion of homosexuality when speaking about the proper definition of a term is paralleomania, case in point. It is exegetically fallacious, by the very definitions of a basic textbook on exegetical fallacies.

Why didn't they cite it? Because it did not have to do with the meaning of the word arsenokoites. It had to do with the meaning of the word paidophthoreiseis.

 

[Odsolo]

Kindly stop telling me what I will and will not do for the sake of the truth and purity of the Gospel. I asked you to be polite, sir, and have remained so in speaking with you. You are not doing me this grace in return when you tell me what I will or will not do. This is part of my living as a graduate student in related fields.

If you are a grad student perhaps you might need to brush up on your reading skills. Expressing doubt about another person’s intentions, is NOT telling that person what he will or will not do, “As if you had any intention of actually reading the source cited.”

As to the matter of my going my merry way with Theophilus? I see, so your mere disagreement with Theophilus qualifies as justification for labelling it eisegesis and going your merry way?

We still have that credibility problem. Did you read my post? Here it is again.

It seems we have a credibility problem here. You presume to lecture me on citing sources, earlier when I quoted Theophilus to Autolycus, 3-vi. You came back with this snide reply, ”Thank you for citing Theophilus. I believe that he was one of Dr. Martin’s case studies. What was it Dale said?” and quoted Martin’s exegesis, or eisegesis, of Theophilus to Autolycus, 1-ii, and went on your merry way, pretending that you replied to my post.​

Frankly I neither agreed nor disagreed with Martin, I did not pay that much attention to his treatment of Theophilus, because it did NOT address my post. I quoted Theophilus to Autocyclus Book 3, chapter vi. You quoted Martin on Theophilus, Book 1, chapter ii. Different books, nothing to go on my merry way about, it was not even relevant.

And I think we still have that reading comprehension problem, I said "exegesis, or eisegesis,." Since Martin is an admitted homosexual, I'm sure it is not too hard to figure out which way I lean, but I did give him the benefit of a doubt.

 

[Ananel]

If you are a grad student perhaps you might need to brush up on your reading skills. Expressing doubt about another person’s intentions, is NOT telling that person what he will or will not do, “As if you had any intention of actually reading the source cited.”

Doubt unfounded.

Frankly I neither agreed nor disagreed with Martin, I did not pay that much attention to his treatment of Theophilus, because it did NOT address my post. I quoted Theophilus to Autocyclus Book 3, chapter vi. You quoted Martin on Theophilus, Book 1, chapter ii. Different books, nothing to go on my merry way about, it was not even relevant.

My apologies. I misread your post, then. I will look at Theophilus to Autocyclus, book 3, chapter vi then, having gone back and reassessed your original point.

 

[TeabagJive]

Excuse me? Want to try again,
[size=+1]ויפתח יהוה את־פי האתון[/size]?
My transliteration is “Wayiptha YHWH Eth-Phi Hahahthon.” I favor “waw” rather than “vav,” for the sixth letter in the Hebrew alephbet.

Moderately interesting but your claim was that the third book of the O.T. was renamed “Leviticus,” in the time of Ezra. “SEFER TORAT KOHANIM” is NOT “Leviticus!”

Thats the title of the documents, which were copies of Leviticus.

Looking at manuscript fragments does not qualify you as a scholar. The fact that a title might appear on a scroll fragment does not prove that was the name of the entire book.

Well, thats the author my sources conclusion, as well as a few others.

There are various titles and captions throughout the O.T.Jewish Encyclopedia-Leviticus

The English name is derived from the Latin "Liber Leviticus," which is from the Greek ([size=+1]το[/size]) [size=+1]Λενιτικόν[/size] (i.e., [size=+1]βιβλίον[/size]). In Jewish writings it is customary to cite the book by its first word," Wa-yikra." ***

Similar titles and colophons, which are best explained as survivals from previous collections, are found also in other parts of the book, as in vi. 7 (A. V. 14); vii. 1, 2, 37, 38; xi. 46, 47; xiii. 59; xiv. 54, 55; xv. 32, 33. It is necessary, therefore, to analyze these laws more closely. ***

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Again, this doesn't adress the specific fragments.

If the sources you listed are, “1st year reading for Ancient Near Eastern Language/Culture students,” I take it, you have never read them. You flunked Hebrew 101, and you probably know even less about Paleo-Hebrew.

Why not focus on the argument and sources then trying to insult. There is no reason for you to get that personal.

And then what? See my previous answer re: titles.

It was NEVER renamed “Leviticus,” in the time of Ezra, or any other time prior to the English versions. The Hebrew name has always been [size=+1]ויקרא[/size], for the first word in the Hebrew text.​

Again, my evidence provided says otherwise. You just won't adress it.

Ahh, well, nothing you posted supports your claim that the book of Leviticus was called that, or any other name, in the time of Ezra.

They do, rather dierectly.

Pity! At least you won’t be embarrassed by not being able to read it, will you? I have a Bible translated from the Qumran/DSS shall I share the translation of the relevant passages? I’m sure they reflect the scholarship.

Sure, you got the document number. It's about ritual purity.

Shallow reference? That’s a joke coming from someone who made a pretense of translating Hebrew

You know I'm right.

“bases much of it's answers of Rabbincal works” And your point is?

Ancient Judaism is based out of 7th centuary BCE and on. Rabbincal works that reflect 1st centuary thought, are of little revelence.

There were no Rabbinical schools like, Gamaliel, prior to the 1st century?

They have yet to find evidence of one.

There was no oral tradition passed down from rabbi to student, or father to son, as required by the law?

Yes, there was. However, you won't find much of it till 1st centuary, and given the passage of time, the two were rather not much alike.

Conservative? From what I have read the ancient Jews were about as conservative as you can get.

The Conservative Movement of Judaism, not poltical mindeset.

Actually what you have posted about ancient Israel is superficial, just a few titles

Well, they are not laymen books, nor are they apologetic works trying to prove or disprove issues of homosexuality. They are not readily available online, unless I start copying pages onto to the internet.

And given how you pretty much just ignored everything I wrote, and insulted me, I knew it wasn't worth my type to type anything out.

. If you have anything relevant, post it, don’t just try to nit pick my sources. You have clearly shown you don’t have what it takes.

Rog

Nothing you have posted relates to ancient Israel in any relevant way. If you want to discuss ancient Israel and homosexuality, get it on, bro.

Well it does, you just don't want to discuss it.

Why don’t you tell us exactly what Rabbi Professor Millgram actually said? I have already cited sources going back to about 2000 years before Millgram.

You are citing early Church Fathers, which represent 1st Centuary interpetation, which is not what I am arguing. I'm looking at the time period roughly between 9th and 8th centuary BCE. Sometimes, documents from near 1st centuary represent the beliefs held at this time period, like the DSS documents.

“Considering the Leveticus quotes were meant for Priests-only” Are you aware that one of the 613 Mitzvoth, in the T’nakh, is that every man was to make his own copy of the Torah?

Again, this is modern Rabbinic Judaism you speak of ( 613 miztvahs ) There wasn't even a Hebrew Bible at this time

 

[Ananel]

Theophilus to Autolycus III Chapter VIII.-Wickedness Attributed to the Gods by Heathen Writers.



For, denying that there are gods, they again acknowledge their existence, and they said they committed grossly wicked deeds. And, first, of Jove the poets euphoniously sing the wicked actions. And Chrysippus, who talked a deal of nonsense, is he not found publishing that Juno had the foulest intercourse with Jupiter?

Apologies for piecemeal treatment of various passages due to space restraints. However, this particular passage was of some note to me, in truth. Allow me to cite its entirety.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/ANF2-3.TXT

For, denying that there are gods, they again acknowledge their existence, and they said they committed grossly wicked deeds. And, first, of Jove the poets euphoniously sing the wicked actions. And Chrysippus, who talked a deal of nonsense, is he not found publishing that Juno had the foulest intercourse with Jupiter? For why should I recount the impurities of the so-called mother of the gods, or of Jupiter Latiaris thirsting for human blood, or the castrated Attis; or of Jupiter, surnamed Tragedian, and how he defiled himself, as they say, and now is worshipped among the Romans as a god? I am silent about the temples of Antinous, and of the others whom you call gods. For when related to sensible persons, they excite laughter. They who elaborated such a philosophy regarding either the non-existence of God, or promiscuous intercourse and beastly concubinage, are themselves condemned by their own teachings. Moreover, we find from the writings they composed that the eating of human flesh was received among them; and they record that those whom they honour as gods were the first to do these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_%28mythology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28god%29

Forgive me if I am somehow misunderstanding Theophilus, but if he is speaking about the foul sexual congress of the femal goddess Juno with her male husband god Jupiter (Hera and Zeus if you wish), how is this a condemnation of homosexuality?


I must ask again, Odsono, because I am becoming very concerned at this point. Are you actually reading all of these citations that you post carefully? You enter a word study contention on the exegesis of arsenokoites, citing among your source texts, a passage that does not contain the word in question as parrallel information and the heterosexual (and notably twisted, for those familiar with the Greco-Roman pantheon's history) relations of a male and female pairing.

I know that some of your citations pertain to the topic at hand, Odsono, but these cases... they draw into question just how seriously you are treating this subject. This is moving beyond parralleleomania, to flagrantly unrelated passages. I will take the time to go over your passages, though each one will take some time to find all original greek verify usage and interpretation for the passage. However, at this point, I must sincerely ask you: Have you read these passages?

 

[Odsolo]

I have experienced some DB problems that prevent me from accessing some of my information and will not be able to respond as I would like.

So let me back up and regroup. For the sake of discussion I will concede that Drs. Martin and Bosworth and any other reputable scholar you care to name were conscientious scholars and did their best when researching and writing about "arsenokoites" and "malakos."

But having said that I still have a problem with what I see as inconsistency with the material I was able to find in the writings of the early church. Those views had to come from somewhere and we know they did not come from the then contemporary society.

With that I will bow out of this discussion until I can correct my problems.

 

[Ananel]

I have experienced some DB problems that prevent me from accessing some of my information and will not be able to respond as I would like.

So let me back up and regroup. For the sake of discussion I will concede that Drs. Martin and Bosworth and any other reputable scholar you care to name were conscientious scholars and did their best when researching and writing about "arsenokoites" and "malakos."

But having said that I still have a problem with what I see as inconsistency with the material I was able to find in the writings of the early church. Those views had to come from somewhere and we know they did not come from the then contemporary society.

With that I will bow out of this discussion until I can correct my problems.

In consideration of your difficulties, I will probably not react to the entirety of your citations unless you return to full capacity in the near future. It wouldn't be fair to do so if you don't have the ability to respond properly.

To sum up: from what I see of your concern, it is primarily systematic and historical in nature, as opposed to exegetical. You are familiar with Wright's response to Boswell, but your primary method has been to cite a variety of passages from patristic sources indicating the attitude of the fathers in general to homosexuality. My contention remains that this doesn't track well with how one finds the definition of a word, moreso than even a pure etymological study (such as done by Dr. Gagnon to reach his conclusions on the septuagint translation of Leviticus 20).

Now, I will say this on a general level: The later we go in the patristic writings, the more likely we are to find clear condemnations of homosexuality. In particular, Chrysostom and Augustine are well noted for their views on the subject, the latter especially due to his former lifestyle as a Manichaean (explained in writings like Confessions.). Contentions exist over the particulars of various writings (as we have encountered through our discussion so far), but I will certainly agree that some of the fathers, especially the later fathers, hold a decidedly negative view of homosexuality. Their viewpoint, in general, is derived from a particular interpretation of Scripture.

However, that remains too general for my mind to deal with the particulars of the two terms. I think that about sums up my previous posts and citations. If you find yourself in a position to respond later, poke me politely through pm and we can resume our discussions here or elsewhere.