arsenokoitai continuing part 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 study william petersen found linguistic confusion in using the english word homosexuals as the meaning of arsenokoitai he faulted wright and english bible translaions for rendering it by homosexuals in i cor and i tim 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 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 in contrast to this modern usage virtually limits the term homosexual to desire and propensity k m benkert who in 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 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 consequently the translation is inaccurate because it includes celibate homophiles incorrectly exludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts and incorrectly includes female homosexuals prior to there was no cognitive structure either inour society or in antiquity within which the modern bifurcation of humanity into homosexuals and hetersosexuals made sence 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 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 n that plato in symposium d d 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 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 d c 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 e several observations about this text are in order lesbianism is contemplated as will as male homosexuality e natural interest ton noun physei b 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 b 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 b 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 d the concept of permanency these are they who continue together throughout life c 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 e a b they mention the need to love the soul not the body e there are tow kinds of love in the body b and each has its desire and passion b d the speakers discuss the principles or matters of love c the desires of love c and being males by nature c noteworthy is the speech of socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is related to love and its objects a c 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 e 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 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 biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction in rom 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 even the catologues of vices are introdiced i tim or concluded i cor 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 the inner condition is as important as the outer act one gives rise to the other cf mt 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 only a few moralist and jewish writers are on record as condemning it for example seneca moral epistles 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 see also his on the virtues where he justifies prohibition of cross dressing even the ot forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes deut 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 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 linguistic grounds footnotes w l petersen can arsenokoitai be translated by homosexuals i cor i tim vc k j dover greek homosexuality cambridge harvard univ n 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 and other evidence cited below the translation is that of w r m lamb plato symposioum lcl cambridge harvard univ 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 elsewhere in the symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love the male and young men c but this must not be love for boys too young the latter should be outlawed d e such love of youths is to be permanent d lifelong and abiding a where homosexual love is considered a disgrace such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the cowardice of the ruled d an early charge of homophobia in athens it was more honorable to love openly than in secret d 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 b 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 dover homosexuality 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 cf de vita contemplativa josephus says that homosexuality had become a fixed habit for some against apion clement of alexandria on matt 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 it is addressed in novella 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 and achilles tatius leucippe and clitophon ii speak of it finally thucydides has great is you glory if you fall not below the standard which nature has set for your sex boswell christianity 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 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 see specifics in s r driver a critical and exegetical commentary on deuteronomy edinburgh he observes that the prohibition of cross dressing in deut is not a mere rule of conventional propriety see also dover homosexuality 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 a b c a c d e according to test naph the sodomites changed the order of nature the jewish writers philo on abraham and josephus ant ag ap label sexual deviation as against nature finally first century moralist such as plutarch dianlogue on love c e b 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 and its implications for biblical prosecriptions of homosexual behavior jets dec
