A conversation with a Greek language professor

[gman620]

Hey all. I wanted to tell you about something which I talked about with a professor at my school who teaches ancient Greek.

As we all know, in 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul uses two words that are said to condemn homosexuality. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. Malakos simply means "soft" and doesn't seem to have much of a connection to homosexuality in general, but arsenokoitai is more controversial. I asked my professor what arsenokoitai means. To quote him roughly:

"Arsenokoitai is a compound word that combines "male" and "bed." "Bed" is the Greco-Roman slang for "sex." So the word then would be "male-bedders" to put it literally, or to make it easier to understand, it would translate as "one who has sex with a male." Because the word is in the masculine gender, it thus stands to reason that the word means "a man who has sex with a man."

I wonder if any of you have any reactions to this or any insights. I think I read somewhere that Paul may've coined it from Leviticus and the prohibition there on same-sex intercourse between men. Any thoughts?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by gman620

Hey all. I wanted to tell you about something which I talked about with a professor at my school who teaches ancient Greek.

As we all know, in 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul uses two words that are said to condemn homosexuality. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. Malakos simply means "soft" and doesn't seem to have much of a connection to homosexuality in general, but arsenokoitai is more controversial. I asked my professor what arsenokoitai means. To quote him roughly:

"Arsenokoitai is a compound word that combines "male" and "bed." "Bed" is the Greco-Roman slang for "sex." So the word then would be "male-bedders" to put it literally, or to make it easier to understand, it would translate as "one who has sex with a male." Because the word is in the masculine gender, it thus stands to reason that the word means "a man who has sex with a man."

I wonder if any of you have any reactions to this or any insights. I think I read somewhere that Paul may've coined it from Leviticus and the prohibition there on same-sex intercourse between men. Any thoughts?

G-man,

Andrewlittle (affectionately known as uncle andy) has done a very thorough word study on Arsenokoitai which looks at the word quite differently. Andy comes to the conlusion that it means something more like "one who commits adultery with a man"

Do a search on "Arsenokoitai" you should be able to pull it up

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by gman620

Hey all. I wanted to tell you about something which I talked about with a professor at my school who teaches ancient Greek.

As we all know, in 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul uses two words that are said to condemn homosexuality. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. Malakos simply means "soft" and doesn't seem to have much of a connection to homosexuality in general, but arsenokoitai is more controversial. I asked my professor what arsenokoitai means. To quote him roughly:

"Arsenokoitai is a compound word that combines "male" and "bed." "Bed" is the Greco-Roman slang for "sex." So the word then would be "male-bedders" to put it literally, or to make it easier to understand, it would translate as "one who has sex with a male." Because the word is in the masculine gender, it thus stands to reason that the word means "a man who has sex with a man."

I wonder if any of you have any reactions to this or any insights. I think I read somewhere that Paul may've coined it from Leviticus and the prohibition there on same-sex intercourse between men. Any thoughts?

Well friend, your guess is as good as mine. As you correctly point out, Paul coined this word. What was in Paul's mind when he coined it? Some suggest that Paul had in mind men who paid boys (the "malakos" or "soft ones") for sex. Was Paul reacting to the commercialization of sex in Corinth? Did Paul have in mind the practices of idol worshipers? Or did Paul have in mind two old guys who had been loyal and monogamous spouses to one another for 25 or 30 years? We don't know. We can't read Paul's mind.

I believe we can understand the general outlines of Paul's ethics, however. Paul was not about setting down rules and making new laws. Paul was urging people to develop something he sometimes called "the mind that was in Christ"---a set of attitudes and temperments that leads one to live like a Christian, like someone who has "matured (or become perfect or whole) in love." Somewhere Paul sums up his view of ethics by saying "there is no law against love."

Scapegoating gay people as worse sinners than anyone else does not seem to me to be the road to perfection in love, to being more Christlike. It seems to me to totally miss the point of what Jesus and Paul were all about.

Steven Webster

[gman620]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Well friend, your guess is as good as mine. As you correctly point out, Paul coined this word. What was in Paul's mind when he coined it? Some suggest that Paul had in mind men who paid boys (the "malakos" or "soft ones") for sex. Was Paul reacting to the commercialization of sex in Corinth? Did Paul have in mind the practices of idol worshipers? Or did Paul have in mind two old guys who had been loyal and monogamous spouses to one another for 25 or 30 years? We don't know. We can't read Paul's mind.

I believe we can understand the general outlines of Paul's ethics, however. Paul was not about setting down rules and making new laws. Paul was urging people to develop something he sometimes called "the mind that was in Christ"---a set of attitudes and temperments that leads one to live like a Christian, like someone who has "matured (or become perfect or whole) in love." Somewhere Paul sums up his view of ethics by saying "there is no law against love."

Scapegoating gay people as worse sinners than anyone else does not seem to me to be the road to perfection in love, to being more Christlike. It seems to me to totally miss the point of what Jesus and Paul were all about.

Steven Webster

I just want to throw in a quick note that I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm simply throwing out an interesting explanation of something and seeing what others have to say in response. I suppose one could make the argument that arsenokoitai refers only to some kind of male sexual activity so it doesn't seem to make much sense that gay men would be doomed while lesbian women aren't even mentioned! (unless we count Romans 1, but that's for another post...)

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by gman620

I suppose one could make the argument that arsenokoitai refers only to some kind of male sexual activity so it doesn't seem to make much sense that gay men would be doomed while lesbian women aren't even mentioned! )

It doesn't make sense to US. But in Paul's cultural context it may have made plenty of sense! This is why it is very difficult to do translations. One cannot simply analyze an ancient Greek word into it's root parts and draw simple conclusions about what it means in English in 21st century America.
One has to look at its literary context, and one can't stop there, one has to look at its HISTORICAL & CULTURAL context as well.

We live in a culture that is close to assuming male/female equality. We have a word that covers BOTH gay men and lesbians, the word "homosexual." There is no such word in ancient Greek. Men and women were not equal in that society. Gender roles were very different.

The act of sex was viewed as an act in which one person dominated another. When Paul talks about sex between two men as being "unnatural," he's likely refering to the violation of the "natural" dominance of men over women. In Romans he mentions women with the same concern in mind: the women don't know their "proper place" in sex--being in submission to a man.

Now, admittedly, this cultural context does not seem entirely foreign---some parts of the evangelical subculture in our society want to return to the male dominance/female submission type of pattern. But to most of us that seems very strange and foreign.

Frankly, I'm with feminist Bible scholars who argue that the Bible doesn't really justify the male dominance/female submission pattern (what is called "patriarchy") as God-given. Patriarchy is a cultural artifact. It is not something we should accept as "natural" or part of God's good creation.

I believe that homophobia is largely rooted in the culture of patriarchy.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

There's more:

You mentioned Leviticus. Leviticus specifically refers to "lying with a man as one would lie with a woman." or maybe even more literally "lying the lyings of a woman with a man." So in the mind of the author of Leviticus when two men have sex, one of them (at least) is acting like a woman.

What kind of sense does that make? It only makes sense in the context of cultural patriarchy. I don't know about you, but when I'm with my husband, neither of us is trying to imitate a woman.

This also explains why in all the Old Testament laws, lesbianism is never mentioned. In that culture a man should not act as a woman, but what women might do with each other was of little or no significance.

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by gman620

Hey all. I wanted to tell you about something which I talked about with a professor at my school who teaches ancient Greek.

As we all know, in 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul uses two words that are said to condemn homosexuality. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. Malakos simply means "soft" and doesn't seem to have much of a connection to homosexuality in general, but arsenokoitai is more controversial. I asked my professor what arsenokoitai means. To quote him roughly:

"Arsenokoitai is a compound word that combines "male" and "bed." "Bed" is the Greco-Roman slang for "sex." So the word then would be "male-bedders" to put it literally, or to make it easier to understand, it would translate as "one who has sex with a male." Because the word is in the masculine gender, it thus stands to reason that the word means "a man who has sex with a man."

I wonder if any of you have any reactions to this or any insights. I think I read somewhere that Paul may've coined it from Leviticus and the prohibition there on same-sex intercourse between men. Any thoughts?

This is just one post on malakoi and arenokoitey(ai):
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...0&postcount=20

And just one on Leviticus:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...2&postcount=13

Maybe these will wet an appetite for more discussion.

[RedneckDyke]

In my own life, I harm myself more with other Leviticus "abominations" than I do with being gay. In particular, that abomination of eating pork and mixing meat and milk in one dish. Those bacon cheeseburgers will kill ya.