From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: #4
Organization: FNAL
Lines: 258

continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission,

THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY

                                      James B. DeYoung

W. Petersen

     More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a
different direction.  In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic
confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of
arsenokoitai.[22]   He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for
rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10.

     In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a
single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey.  He finds
"homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic.  "A
major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the
thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88).

      What is this "disjunction"?  He bases it on historical and linguistic
facts.  Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as
polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. 
Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. 
Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in
describing these actions.  Ancient society know nothing of the categories of
"homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover
quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both
homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23]

      In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual"
to desire and propensity.  K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term
equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or
affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189).

     Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English
Dictionary,"  which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no
mention of acts.  Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for
arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history
"where no equivalent concept existed" (189).  Consequently the translation is
inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes
female homosexuals" (19=89).  Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure,
either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of
humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189).

     The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio
"homosexual" is mistaken.  Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one
mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds?  The next
phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position.

                        THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING
                          ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS"

Historical Grounds

     A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai
by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence.  Since
virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's
usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available.  Yet much writing
reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary
with Paul.  The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of
homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to
present-day concepts.  

     Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual
condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be
part of the definition of the term.  They assert this either because the term
is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; 
Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient
times (Bailey; Petersen).  The following discussion will show why neither of
these positions is legitimate.  Attention will be devoted to the latter postion
first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds."

     In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the
homosexual condition exist before 1869?  Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if
it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including
ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. 
Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only
knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of
same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex
orientation or condition.  Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in
"Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient
ingnorance of this condition.  He discounts this, however, believing that even
here "acts appear to be the deciding factor."  However, this is a very
significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of
the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition.

     THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for
knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24]   Plato posits a third sex
comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature"
palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings.  Zeus sliced these
human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the
gods.  Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the
opposite sex or one of the same sex.  Plato then quotes Aristophances:

    Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like
    a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two;  and each is ever
    searching for the tally that will fit him.  All the men who are sections
    of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are 
    woman-courters;  our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex,
    whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses.
    All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men:
    they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions.
    Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as 
    their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by
    making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be
    clasped in men's embrasces;  these are the finest boys and striplings,
    for they have the most manly nature.  Some say they are shameless
    creatures, but falsely:  for their behavior is due not to shamelessness
    but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome
    their like.  Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity
    these alone prove in a public career to be men.  So when they come
    to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in
    wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of
    custom;  they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days.
    A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the 
    willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.  Well, when
    one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- 
    happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously 
    thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be 
    induced to leave each other's side for a single moment.  These are
    they who continue together throughout life, though they could not
    even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25]

Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as
long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would
unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all
the time:  (192e).

     Several observations about this text are in order.  Lesbianism is
contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e).  "Natural interest" (ton
noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. 
The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: 
(paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to
be born this," i.e., as homosexual.  The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them
are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is
present.  Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind
reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai
tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are
they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present.  Further
mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty,
homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is
recognizable.

    Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from
actions.  THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is
crucial;  money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). 
They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e).  There are tow
kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion"
(186b-d).  The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the
desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c).  Noteworthy is the
speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is
related to love and its objects (200a-201c).  Desire is felt for "what is not
provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack."  This is
the object of desire and love.  Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what
sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e).  This ancient
philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of
being or nature.  His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26]

     In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and
homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato.  Petersen is in error
when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not
inclination or orientation.  Widespread evidence to the contray supports the
latter. [27]

     Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where
homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction.  In
Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires
of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and
inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). 
Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor
6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." 
Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt.
23:28).  The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise
to the other (cf. Mt 5:27).

     Petersen errs regarding other particulars too.  Transvestism apparently
was accepted by the ancients.   It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian,
people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28]  Only a
few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it.  For example,
Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an
adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman.  Philo also goes to
some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women
(The Special Laws III, 37-41;  see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he
justifies prohibition of cross-dressing).  Even the OT forbade the interchange
of clothing between the sexes  (Deut 22:5).

     Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the
"new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior.  These did not
begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even
non-Christian contemporaries used them.  Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu,
Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29]

Linguistic Grounds

footnotes
___________________________
22  W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor
6:9; I Tim 1:10)"  VC 40 (1986): 187-91.
23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1.
24    We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect
Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's
view.  However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover
(Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 
25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato:  Symposioum LCL (Cambridge:
Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143.  Note the reference to "adulteress."  If there is
a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must
also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth.
26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love
the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; 
the latter should be outlawed (181d-e).  Such love of youths is to be permanent
(181d), lifelong and abiding (184a).  Where homosexual love is considered a
disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the
cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?).  In Athens it
was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression
of "coming out of the closet").  Mutality was present ("this compels lover and
beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b).
    For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position
is inadequate and misrepresentative.  It is a significant witness to Greek
society hundreds of years before the time of Christ.
27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in
Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere.  Philo writes of those
who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws
3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63).  Josephus says that homosexuality
had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75)  Clement of
Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural
aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well
not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1)  It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's
Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as
in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts).  Pseudo Lucian (Erostes
48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it.  Finally
Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard
which nature has set for your sex."
     Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers
(Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual
homosexual relationships, even marriages.  Even emperors could be either
gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says.  Scroggs
(Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have
existed in the past.  He discusses possible references to adult mutual
homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44).
28  See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250.  He observes that the prohibition of
cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." 
See also Dover, Homosexuality  73-76, 144.
29  Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous
citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para
phosin)(Laws 636a-b;  636c;  836a-c; 838; 841d-e).  According to TEST.NAPH
3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature."  THe Jewish writers, Philo
(On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199;
2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature."  Finally,, first
century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of
homosexuality as "against nature."  Christians clearly did not invent the
labels "natural" and "unnatural".  See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature'
in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual
Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41.
