1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy
1:9-10
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE:
PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY
By Bruce L. Gerig
4. Sexual mores in Greece and around Corinth. Some sense of the sexual outlook and loose mores that prevailed in Roman times in Greece and around Corinth can be obtained from a comic work called The Golden Ass (or Metamorphoses). The author Apuleius (c.122–c.160) was born to a wealthy family in North Africa, he studied in Carthage and Athens, and while in Greece he apparently participated in many rituals and cults before he returned home and was appointed a priest in the cult of Aesculapius (Greek: Asklepios) for the region around Carthage (xi). The story of The Golden Ass is narrated by Lucius, who has come from Athens (1.4) to Thessaly, in northern Greece, on business (1.2). Arriving at the town of Hypata, he enters the house of Milo, for whom he has a letter from Demeas in Corinth (1.21–22); and there he falls in love with the servant-girl Photis, with whom he begins an intimate relationship (2.16). Photis continues to delight Lucius, giving him “the gift that young boys give [anal sex]” (3.20); and then she reveals to him that her mistress, Pamphile, is a magician (3.17–18) and she plans to change herself into a bird that very night. As the two spy through a crack in the door, Pamphile rubs herself all over with an ointment, mutters words, and indeed is transformed into an owl (3.21). Lucius is so intrigued that he persuades Photis to bring him some of the magic potion to try on himself; but being brought the wrong jar, he is changed instead into an ass (3.22–25). Photis urges Lucius not to panic, however, because if he eats some rose pedals, he will be changed back into human form (3.25). However, before Lucius the ass (who still retains his human consciousness) is able to find any rose pedals, he is stolen by robbers (3.28) and trotted off; and so begins his incredible string of misadventures.
At one point (chapter 8), Lucius the ass is sold to a eunuch in the service of the Syrian (Mother) Goddess, and he is then taken home to meet all of his “girls” (8.25–26). The slave there who plays the reed pipe for the eunuchs’ processions is a “fairly hard-bodied young man” and he also plays the “prostitute” at home, being forced to perform “love-works at all levels.” He is delighted with the arrival of the ass, which he hopes will finally give his “long-aching, now exhausted loins” a badly needed rest (8.26). The next day the sacred eunuchs (Galli), clad in many colored garments and with their faces painted with cosmetics and their eyes kohl-rimmed, lead Lucius the ass bearing the goddess statue through the streets, carrying along huge axes and swords (8.27). When they reach the estate of a rich landowner, they begin shrieking, rolling their heads, swinging their dangling curls, and slashing their flesh with the blades. One eunuch takes out a whip and begins flagellating himself, until blood pours forth from his many lacerations. At last, when the eunuchs have become exhausted by their self-butchery, onlookers give them gifts of wine, milk, cheese, flour, and coins, which the galli stuff into bags and pile on Lucius (8.27–28). On their way home, the eunuchs demand a ram from a farmer to satisfy the hunger of the Syrian Goddess. Then, bathed and prettied up, they bring in a local lad, “a strong and strapping young man, well equipped in the power of his loins and groin,” to be their dinner guest. Yet, before they’ve barely tasted the food, they “go wild” and “driven by their unspeakable itches and urges,” they stripped the youth of his clothes, “laid him back on his back, and surged upon him in waves from every direction, demanding his services with their unspeakable mouths.” Shocked by this “outrage,” Lucius the ass begins braying as loud as he can, until some men from the street break open the door, catch the eunuch priests “red-handed,” and rescue the lad. Losing face, the galli then gather their things together, pile them onto Lucius the ass, and sneak out of town at midnight (8.29–30).
Overall, one cannot deny that prostitution rests heavily on Paul’s mind in 1 Cor 6, especially in verses 12–20, but also implicitly in long passages elsewhere where he warns members in his churches not to participate in the pagan temple feasts, nor join the orgies and prostitutes there (1 Cor 10:1–22, Gal 5:13–21, and cf. Acts 15). Therefore, malakoi and arsenokoitai might relate in some way to prostitution, perhaps 1 Cor 6:10 alluding to male prostitutes, while 6:15–16 specifically mentions female prostitutes; at least Norman Kraus sees prostitution as “the controlling metaphor for unholiness” in this passage.55 Moreover, repeated references to slaves in Paul’s churches surely related to an agony Paul felt over how slaves were often sexually abused by their masters and with impunity in the Roman world, a cruel example of treating people “unjustly” if there ever was one. Yet also his concern with gender issues (men wearing long hair, 1 Cor 11:14) suggests that Paul may have been recalling the effeminate cinaedi, who offered themselves to be penetrated like a woman and who could be identified by their long hair (Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 7.4.7),56 or the galli, devotees of the Mother Goddess who had castrated themselves and then appeared in women’s clothes and with long hair (Apuleius, The Golden Ass 8.25–30).57 Yet, Paul also displays archaic, unscientific, and inaccurate views related to homosexual orientation and transgender orientation, which raise serious questions about some of his basic assumptions.
6. Bible translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai. So who are these two groups of people (King James Version, Oxford Standard Text: “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind”) whom the Apostle Paul says will not be admitted to the final Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9–10)? Setting the stage for later English translations of the Bible was the Latin Vulgate, an early, elegant rendering made from the original Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture into everyday (vernacular, vulgate) Latin and translated by the priest-scholar Jerome (born 340) in Bethlehem, who dedicated himself to this effort between 386 and his death in 420. This would become the official Roman Catholic Bible; and later it would be translated into English at an English college in France (which drew also from some preceding English translations), with the NT published in 1582 in Rheims and the OT in 1610 in Douay.58 The explosion of printed copies of English translations of the Bible from the fifteenth century on was made possible by the invention of movable type, credited to Johannes Gutenberg in Germany; and the Gutenberg Bible (1455–1456) is recognized as the first printed Bible.59 Now the Latin Vulgate rendered malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9–10 as molles (‘soft, slack, effeminate, or weak’) and masculorum concubitores (‘male concubines,’ or passive male sexual partners);60 yet how is one to explain this unusual second translation? Born in Strido(n), now in Croatia, Jerome studied at Rome and then lived for a while in Antioch in Syria (and as a hermit in the Syrian desert for 4–5 years) before settling in Bethlehem where he founded a monastery in 386 AD.61 Now a contemporary, John Chrysostom (c.347–407), bishop of Constantinople and educated in Antioch,62 described homoerotic relations as being rampant in the Christian society in fourth-century Antioch, noting that church leaders there “do not consort with prostitutes as fearlessly as they do with young men [in the church]. The fathers of the[se] young men take this in silence . . . [and] no one blushes” (Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae 3.8). John Boswell noted that the main concern here appears to be the seduction of boys, i.e., pederasty.63 Yet, it should be noted that the Latin Vulgate NT past the Gospels was probably translated after Jerome’s death, by another hand64 perhaps in his monastery. Still, Boswell notes that during these early centuries of the Christian Era there seems to have been very little hostility toward homosexual behavior; and many prominent and respected Christians—some even canonized saints—were involved in passionate homosexual relationships, sometimes physical and sometimes romantic only.65 Therefore, within a historical context, it may be suggested that molles in the Latin Vulgate referred to older men who lacked moral character and the masculorum concubitores to their young male lovers. However, Martin Luther’s later German Bible (1534) would switch these meanings around, offering Weichlinge (“sissy boy”) for malakoi and Knabenschänder (“boy-molester”) for arsenokoitai.66 And John Wycliffe’s earlier Bible (1380) emphasized excessive sexual behavior here, with malakoi translated into Middle English as “letchouris ayen kynde” (lecherous in kind [in nature, with themselves or with women?]) and arsenokoitai as “thei that doon letcheri with men” (they who do lechery with men). Yet, the majority of translations in the sixteenth century would render malakoi simply as “weaklings” (with different spellings), as seen in William Tyndale’s NT (1526), Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568). However, the Geneva NT (1557) would offer “wa[n]tons” and “bouggerers” for these two terms—“bugger” being an affectionate Middle English slang word for a fellow or lad; and “buggerers” then came to refer to “sodomites” or males who have anal intercourse with other males.67 In our survey of Bible translations, it is the Rheims NT (1582) which switches to “effeminat [males]” for malakoi, a view that will then dominate translations down to the first decade of the twentieth century.
In today’s familiar and still popular King James Version, 1 Cor 6:9–10 condemns the “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” However, in our survey William Tyndale’s NT (1526) is the first translation where “abusars of them selves with the mankynde” appears, which then was carried over into King James’s Authorized Version (1611) as “abusers of themselues with mankinde,” while the Rheims NT (1582) offered the more simple “liers vvith mankinde.” (To view the real, original text of the Authorized [or King James] Version, see online http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7092789M/The_Holy_Bible). The wording “with mankinde” here clearly connects to “Thou shalt not lie with mankinde, as with womankinde : it is abomination” in Lev 18:22 (AV 1611), but from where comes the idea of self-abuse? It should be noted that from the Middle Ages (c.500–1453) on the sexual sin given greatest stress in the penitentials (books which specified acts of penance to be done by Christians for committing various sins) was placed on masturbation, even more so than on fornication, sodomy, or bestiality (Taylor).68 Peter Damien (1007–1072), an ascetic monk devoted to strict mortification of the body,69 in his treatise Gomorran Book provided the first official definition of sodomy, relating it (expansively) to masturbation, mutual masturbation, copulation between the thighs, and anal penetration (Jordan).70 Generally in the eyes of the Church all sexual pleasure came to be viewed as dangerous and was frowned upon, even within marriage and leading to procreation. (Penance was also required for involuntary night emissions.) The Church sought support for its strict condemnation of masturbation from ‘Onan’s sin’ in Gen 38:9, although the issue here was not masturbation or even interrupted coitus per se but Onan’s refusal to fulfill his family duty to give the childless widow of his deceased brother an heir.71 Anyway, the Tyndale and Authorized Bible translations view the penetration of another male as another example of self pleasure, and therefore self-abuse.
Relating to the origin of the King James Version, under the order of James I of England (1604) forty-seven scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster began work to produce a new English translation of the Bible.72 Since this was done before English spelling was standardized, the text looks very different from that found in King James Bibles today (even though they may read “1611” on the title page), including spellings and typesettings like “mankynde,” two v’s used for a “w,” and use of the ‘long s’ (which looks like an f without the crossbar) which is rendered in this text as a normal “s.” This translation, finally published in two copies in 1611, was at first simply called “the new translation.” Later it would popularly become known as “King James’s translation” or “King James’s Bible,” then as the “Authorized Version” in England and the “King James Version” in the United States. However, numerous typographical errors were corrected and spelling, grammar and punctuation were modernized in F. S. Parris’s Cambridge revision (1762); then this text was improved in Benjamin Blayney’s Oxford Standard Text (1769), where “the printed text was settled” so that it served as a standard for other Bible publishers at the time. Yet in the next century the English Revised Version (1885) would incorporate new scholarly findings; and an American Standard Version (1901) followed, replacing “LORD” (for the Hebrew YHWH) with “Jehovah,” although this change did not find widespread acceptance. Earlier F. H. A. Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873) would restore some of the earlier text, yet make a further attempt to modernize spelling and make the text more consistent. So Hendrickson Publishers’ Pew Bible–KJV (2007) would use Scrivener’s text as its primary source, although rejecting its paragraph form.73 The popular American Bible Society’s KJV Bible does not explain inside how its exact text came into being; however, a staff person there explained to me in an email (June 3, 2011) that “our text is the product of some ten years of research conducted by a Biblical scholar committee organized in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Our standard edition of the KJV Bible was first issued in 1932 and was slightly revised in 1962.” Apart from slight modifications in italics and capitalization, the only difference between these two texts in 1 Cor 6 relates to the spelling of “among” (ABS) versus “amongst” (Hendrickson) in verse 5. Yet, all these revisions over time (many very minor) would not change the basic translation for malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 (KJV)—that is, until “homosexuals” and “sodomites” appeared in the New King James Version (1982), unfortunately a more problematic translation than the old (see below).
In historical context, it might be noted that the homosexuality of James I (born 1566, and king of England and Ireland 1603–1625) was well-known. He entered into his first romance with his French cousin, Esmé Stuart (some twenty-four years his senior), who the clergy charged “foully misused his [James’s] tender age” with “disordinant desires.” Later, his greatest love was George Villiers, whom the bishop of Gloucester called “the handsomest man in England” and to whom the king wrote letters addressed to “Sweetheart” or “Sweet Steenie.” It is a rich irony, of course, that James’s authorized Bible translation would so often be invoked to condemn homosexuals, for this ‘effeminate homosexual’ was clearly an intelligent man, a capable leader, and an accomplished writer (Young).74 Yet, this case reveals again the paradox between legal positions and actual practice (Patai),75 between ancient law and real life. Actually James cautioned his young son Prince Henry against acts of sodomy; yet no one dared question the king’s conduct openly, even though Sir Simonds D’Ewes once described James I as infected with the “sin of sodomy.”76 This was also an age when many female roles in the English theater were performed by boy actors, in drag.77 Yet also it should be remembered that earlier, during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–1547), the English Parliament had passed the “buggery” act of 1533, which turned sodomy into a civil crime, then allowing the Protestant King Henry to expropriate Catholic monasteries in England, which his investigators declared were sodomical centers. This new law called for the death penalty and seizure of property “for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast.”78 Yet, not only did James I openly entertain his male favorites, but Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) lived unabashedly in sexual intimacy with his manservants, Christopher Marlow (1564–1593) produced his play Edward the Second which describes the love of King Edward II (1284–1327) for his favorite Piers Gaveston, and the first 126 sonnets (of a total of 154) by William Shakespeare (1564–1616) were addressed to a young man called “the Master Mistris of my passion.”79 In fact, the sodomy law was seldom enforced, since it focused narrowly on anal penetration.80 Still, the connection of copulation with another male with self-abuse (orgasmic pleasure) would persist in English Bible translations for the next three centuries and beyond. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, besides “effeminate” for malakoi and ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ for arsenokoitai, there would also appear for the second Greek term “buggerers” (cf. Anthony Purver’s Bible, 1764) and “sodomites” (cf. John Worsley’s NT, 1770), the latter of which would become a favored translation down to our own time.
Coming into the twentieth century, for malakoi the Twentieth Century NT (1904) recalled Wycliff’s idea of lechery (1380)—sex out of control—with its “licentious [person],” while Edgar Goodspeed’s NT (1923) condemned the “sensual,” as did Charles Williams’ NT (1937); and the French Jerusalem Bible (1974) called them the dépravés, and the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) the “self indulgent.” Earlier, William Newcome’s NT (1809) had translated both terms as “abusers of themselves”—and from around 1700 onward a number of theologians and medical quacks had begun describing and warning against various emotional and physical consequences that resulted from masturbation and night emissions, including acne, feebleness, spinal cord decay, gonorrhea, blindness, and insanity81—complete nonsense that was only discarded after Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) thoroughly refuted such claims.82 Other general but desultory terms not present in 1 Cor 6:9–10 also began appearing, such as “any who are guilty of unnatural crime” (for both terms) in Richard Weymouth’s NT (1903), as well as infâmes (the infamous) for arsenokoitai in Louis French’s Bible (1910) and “pervert” in J. B. Phillip’s Letters to Young Churches (1956), carried over then into the New English NT (“perversion,” 1961) and into William Barclay’s NT (“perverts,” 1969).
Yet after the appearance of “catamites” (i.e., passive male sexual partners who are anally penetrated by other males) and “sodomites” (i.e., their active male penetrators) in James Moffatt’s NT (1913), the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai for many translators became more closely linked and in a sexual way; note this pair of terms also in the English Jerusalem Bible (1966) and the Inclusive Language NT (1994). Then, it was not long before the Revised Standard Version NT (1946) and Ronald Knox’s Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holydays (1946) introduced the term “homosexuals” to cover both Greek terms. This is interesting since the noun “homosexual” and other word variations were slow to enter the vocabulary of even educated people in England and the United States and did not find popular usage until after Kinsey’s 1948 volume was published (Halpern).83 Yet, Kinsey’s study raised another awareness that likely affected translations, i.e., his observation that a sizable number of males, most of them basically heterosexual, had also experienced some homosexual activity at some point in their lives.84 Therefore, we find wording like “those who participate in homosexuality” appearing in the Amplified NT (1958) and “partakers in homosexuality” in the Berkeley Version (1959). While Derrick Bailey in his ground-breaking Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955) clearly distinguished between the pervert (a heterosexual person who turns to homosexual behavior, perhaps because females are unavailable to him, or he needs money, or out of curiosity, etc.) and the invert (a person who possesses a deep, abiding psycho-sexual attraction toward members of the same sex),85 this distinction would be largely ignored by translators—although, interestingly, the designation “sexual perverts” (RSV 2nd ed., 1972) does suggest persons who have turned from their natural inclination to another path. Then, no doubt influenced by the views of Robin Scroggs (1983),86 the New American NT (1986) introduced “boy prostitutes” for malakoi, while the New Revised Standard Version (1989) referred to “male prostitutes” (cf. also the New Living Translation, 1996; International Standard Version, 2000; Today’s New International NT, 2002; and World English Bible, 2005). At the same time, no Bible translation narrowed the meaning of arsenokoitai simply to refer to these prostitutes’ customers (so Scroggs), but rather they remained with more general terms like “sodomites” or “homosexuals”—even though “sexual orientation” as we understand it today was unknown in Biblical times (Powell).87 Eugene Peterson was so puzzled by these two terms that he simply translated them as “[t]hose who . . . use and abuse sex” (The Message, 2002).
Most translations from James Moffatt’s NT on (“catamites,” 1913) came to view malakoi as conveying a sexual meaning, along with arsenokoitai, as found with the pair of males addressed in the Levitical ban (18:22 and 20:13), which “catamite” and “sodomite” do seem to parallel. Most translators also read malakoi and arsenokoitai as a general condemnation of all homosexual activity—although phrases and terms like “unnatural crime [or, vice],” “pervert[s],” “sodomites,” “homosexuals,” and “transvestites” all present problems in definition and application. Interestingly, “effeminate” almost entirely disappears as a translation for malakoi after 1960, because most “[c]ontemporary scholars would be rightly embarrassed to invoke effeminacy as a moral category today” (Rogers)99—although this designation still appears in the Updated New American Standard Bible (1995), carrying a footnote reading “by perversion,” whatever that means in this case. Likewise, “practicing homosexuals,” which recently began appearing (Today’s New International NT, 2002; George Blair’s NT, 2006), seems to say that some people have a fixed homosexual orientation, but still they should not act on their basic sexual desires—an idea that comes out of Robert Gagnon (2001) and from the playbook of the Ex-Gay movement. Even “sodomites” (see Orthodox Study Bible, 2008), pointing to males who have anal intercourse with other men, is problematic—because male prostitutes in Paul’s day, whether they were called upon to offer active or passive sexual service, had no choice but to do their pimps’ and customers’ bidding. Likewise, Roman men viewed anal penetration (being a catamite) as what a good-looking slave boy was for (Ruden).100 So, would this keep such slaves who wanted to come to Jesus out of the kingdom of God? This hardly seems to fit the view of the Apostle Paul, who wished to “win as many as possible” to Christ (1 Cor 9:19). In the end, not only is there continuing disagreement among translators over how to render these two Greek words, but translations often reflect their own historical context, while even the preferred meanings—“passive, effeminate male sexual partners” and “men who have anal intercourse with males”—lack many conditional nuances of meaning that the first-century historical context offers, leading readers to simplistic and false conclusions about Paul’s most likely and more detailed thinking on these matters.
7. Modern commentators’ views on malakoi and arsenokoitai. As we have seen, a survey of Bible translations for these two Greek terms over the centuries reveals a broad (and disheartening) range of meanings. So now we turn to survey forty-four Bible commentaries and articles (see Table 1), from 1730 on but primarily from the last sixty years, where we find expanded discussion and more helpful insight. Sometimes in writing on 1 Cor 6:9–10 commentators simply ignore these two Greek terms entirely and the taboo subjects which they might suggest (e.g., Charles Hodge, 1860; Marcus Dods, 1898; Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, 1911).101 However, Christian Kling’s commentary on 1 Corinthians (translated from German 1868) places emphasis on gender transgression here, referring to qui muliebria patiuntur, those “who allow oneself [to be used] like a woman,” and then other males “who used them in an unnatural way.”102 Albert Barnes (1841) also writes in such an historically-grounded manner that his remarks remain perceptive even today: he held that malakoi points to those who give themselves up to “a soft, luxurious, and indolent [lazy] way of living; who make self-indulgence the grand object of life; who can endure no hardship and practice no self-denial in the cause of duty and of God.” Yet, he recognized that classical writers also applied this term to cinaedi or catamites who give themselves up “to wantonness and sensual pleasures, or who are kept to be prostituted by others.” Then arsenokoitai he identified with “pederasty” and “sodomites.”103 Heinrich Meyer (1883) also believed that malakoi pointed to “effeminate, luxurious livers,” and John Lias (1886) to “self-indulgent” individuals.104
Coming into the
twentieth century, some commentators continued to hold that malakoi simply referred to the “morally weak,” with arsenokoitai then given a
variety of meanings.
For example, John McNeill (1976) pointed to ‘those who are morally weak, or lacking in self control’ and to ‘male prostitutes,’105 although in a later edition (1993) he wrote that the second term referred “most
likely [to] anal intercourse” and any male who did this.106 John Boswell (1980) similarly referred to the “morally-weak” and “active
male prostitutes,” the latter capable of servicing both males and females.107 Richard Horsley (1998)
refers (more specifically) to “masturbators”
and “male prostitutes,”108 Daniel Helminiak (2000) to “unrestrained
[individuals]” and “men who have
penetrative sex with men,”109 and David Lull (2007) to “[males] who lack the moral strength to
control their desires” and “males
who pursue unrestrained sexual desires by having [anal] intercourse with other
males.”110
However, in the second half of the twentieth century, a larger number of
commentators selected meanings for malakoi which emphasize effeminacy
in one way or another, as with: ‘effeminate
males’ (Tom Horner 1978, Alice Bellis and Terry Hufford 2002), ‘effeminate boys or youths’ (Hans
Conzelmann 1975, Peter Coleman 1989), ‘effeminate
male prostitutes’ (Gordon Fee 1987, Elisabeth Fiorenza 2000, Joseph
Fitzmyer 2008), or ‘effeminate passive
homosexuals’ (Gagnon 2001).111
Herman Waetjen believes that literature and art of the Mediterranean world of antiquity strongly suggest that malakoi (“soft ones”) in 1 Cor 6:9–10 referred to pederasty, “to boys or young men between the ages of eleven and seventeen, who because they had not yet grown a beard or pubic hair bore a likeness to young women and were attractive to older men.” Arsenokoitai (“male” and “bed”), which Paul himself may have coined and which derived from the Levitical ban, then referred to the older males who pursued these youths. However, the pederastic ideal that Pausanias described in Plato’s Symposium was seldom achieved (i.e., a love focused on leading the youth to wisdom and virtue, 184e–185b); rather unequal power and adult exploitation usually characterized such a relationship. The youth was required to be submissive and passive while the older male obtained his self-gratification; and generally the relationship ended when the youth showed signs of growing a beard, at which time the erastēs (“lover”) began searching for a new erōmenos (“beloved”) or malakos. Then, in time, the youth himself would assume the role of an erastēs, seeking sexual relations with boys; and so the cycle of pederasty would continue.128
However, a second group of commentators found meanings for these terms in male prostitution, which was common in ancient Roman cities (Younger).129 Robin Scroggs (1983) applied malakoi and arsenokoitai to the “effeminate call-boy” and the “active [male] partner” who paid for his services;130 and Victor Furnish (1985) followed suit with ‘effeminate, adolescent, passive males’ and “their customers”131—although in a later edition (1994) Furnish wrote that the second term also could refer to any ‘male who has intercourse with another male.’132 Gordon Fee (1987) referred to a “male prostitute,” who was a “consenting homosexual youth” (note the emphasis here on free youths, as opposed to slaves bound to serve their masters) and his “active [male] partner,”133 and Elisabeth Fiorenza (2000) to “effeminate male prostitutes” and “the male partner who hires him [the male prostitute] to satisfy his sexual needs.”134 Martti Nissinen (1998) felt that these terms might refer to the ‘effeminate, girlish cinaedi’—traditionally effeminate male dancers who were known to wiggle their buttocks in performance and who frequently offered their bodies for sexual use (Younger)135—and ‘males who sexually exploit other males.’136
Another twist in the reading of arsenokoitai came with Dale Martin (1996) who asserted that, while malakoi referred to ‘effeminate males,’ arsenokoitai was used too vaguely in early Christian texts that followed Paul’s letter to give this second term any reading beyond ‘those who economically or sexually exploit others, through rape, sex, pimping, or other like means.’139 Martti Nissinen (1998) held that in this context (1 Cor 6) both malakoi and arsenokoitai must point to “examples of the exploitation of persons.”140 Alice Bellis and Terry Hufford (2002) refer to “effeminate [males],” along with “sexual exploiters” of males.141
At the same time, a growing number of modern commentators seem unable to decide on a single meaning for either malakoi or arsenokoitai, but instead offer a range of options. For example, William Countryman (1988) noted that malakoi could be applied “to any male who was seen as less than upstanding or respectable” (e.g., Philo applied this term to a man who remarries his former wife, On the Special Laws 3.30–31).142 On the other hand, “the classic form of same-sex partnership was pederastic, the love of an adult male (erastēs, lover) for a youth (erōmenos, beloved)”—although “[i]n the Roman era, the beloved was more commonly a slave and entirely at his master’s bidding,” and “there were also male prostitutes who serviced both sexes.”143 The Romans simply “assumed that most human beings are attracted sexually both to their own and the opposite sex.”144 Yet malakos could also refer to the masturbator who is “so devoted to the pursuit of private pleasure as to be devoid of responsibility,” and arsenokoitēs could refer to a pederast, or a male prostitute, or “the male, slave or free, who used his sexual attractiveness to ingratiate himself with a rich and elderly lover in the hope of receiving a substantial legacy, thus replacing more legitimate heirs.”145 John McNeill (1993) wrote that malakoi probably referred to those who are “loose, morally weak, or lacking in self control.” Yet, the use of this word by later Church Fathers suggests that it might also have referred to “masturbation” or “effeminacy,” although the latter “has no necessary connection with homosexuality.” Arsenokoitēs then might refer to an “obsessive corruptor of boys,” to “male prostitution,” or to any “[male penetrator in] anal intercourse.”146
David Fredrickson (2000) tied malakoi with “excess or greed and lack of self-control,” which could apply to “men who were too interested in having sex with women,” to “adulterers,” and to “males who used other males.” Arsenokoitēs probably referred to the pederast, to the ‘one who has a boy as an erōmenos (beloved)’ and disgraces him by penetrating him; although it also could refer to any male who engages in ‘unjust or violent sexual behavior.’147 Robert Gagnon (2001) held that malakoi may refer to “prostituting passive homosexuals” (passive male prostitutes) or to “effeminate heterosexual and homosexual males.” This group could also include the cinaedi or passive males who had “a desire to be penetrated by other men,” as well as those castrated “cultic functionaries” who were so condemned by Philo (On the Special Laws 3.41–42).148 Then arsenokoitēs referred to “the man who lies with a male,” who has “homosexual intercourse” with him.149 Mathew Kuefler (2001) also believed that these two terms related to the Levitical ban and so referred to “the male who is penetrated” and the “male who penetrates [another male].”150 Yet he notes, one must not forget Philo’s condemnation of the effeminate eunuch priests in Alexandria, Egypt, who served the Mother Goddess, whom Jerome later (ca. 400) would describe in Latin as the effeminati, “the ones who are nowadays at Rome the servants of the Mother” (Commentariorum in Osee 1.4.14). So, the “effeminates” here must surely include, if not be directed primarily against, these “eunuchs and their cult” and the castration practices “with which they dishonor[ed] their own bodies,” and who thereafter dressed in female vestments.151 J. Paul Sampley (2002) wrote that malakos could include “a man who was not adequately ‘manly,’” or the more passive homosexual partner (frequently a boy and sometimes a slave), and also “boys who solicited sex with their elders for pay. Then arsenokoitēs referred to “the more active male” sexually in a same-sex liaison or to that older male, often heterosexual and married, who “kept a boy for their [his] pleasure.”152
Yet, could it not be that Paul meant for both malakoi and arsenokoitai to refer to more than one kind of exploitive, degrading behavior (as he viewed the ancient Roman world); and to allow for this, he purposely chose broad, categorical (although at the same time ambiguous) terms? As David Greenberg suggests with regards to malakoi, “Paul . . . deliberately chose a term that was derogatory but not precise. . . . He assumed that his readers had a pretty good idea of what sorts of behavior were out of bounds.”153 And perhaps also with arsenokoitai. Paul felt assured that the recipients of his letter to Corinth would clearly understand what he meant by these Greek terms, because he no doubt had specifically addressed these behaviors while ministering and teaching in Corinth earlier for a year and a half (Acts 18:11). In fact, pornoi (G4205), in 1 Cor 6:9 is another categorical, sexual, yet ambiguous term, which refers broadly to “inappropriate sexual behavior.” Although usually translated as “fornicator[s]” (KJV–ABS 1932, NASB 1960, NKJV 1982, Green 1986, NRSV 1989, REB 1989, UNASB 1999, Van der Pool 2006), it sometimes has also been rendered as “the sexually immoral” (NIV 1978, NJB 1985, ESV 2001, Strong 2001). In different passages porneia, “fornication” (G4202) is applied to incest (1 Cor 5:1), visiting prostitutes (1 Cor 6:16–18), adultery (Matt 5:32), and sex between two unmarried persons (Matt 15:19).
As David Lull (2007) writes, Paul’s vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 should be taken seriously (even though some of its details are unclear), since members of Christ’s community should be “free of the injustices found outside it.”154 Pederastic practices should be criticized because they promote child abuse, misuse of (unequal) power, lack of mutual adult consent, and corruption of minors. Yet, at the same time, Paul knew nothing about “homosexual orientation,” which is now known to be heavily influenced by genetic and other biological factors (Wilson and Rahman).155 Nor did he understand, as researchers do today, that “transgender orientation” in many cases also originates in the womb (Brill and Pepper).156 Also, a deeper theme in Paul’s letters is doing what love requires (Lull).157 Other issues here are not so black and white either, since many, if not most, prostitutes in Paul’s day had been forced into servitude, then sold to brothel pimps or other slave owners to whom they owed whatever sexual services were requested. Even the effeminate male issue may have seemed blurry to the observant Paul as he must have recognized that some heterosexual males display a more gentle, ‘womanish’ demeanor in contrast to other macho, aggressive, domineering types. For example, it is interesting to note with Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca for short), husband and wife and missionary associates of Paul, that in four out of the six verses where their names are mentioned Priscilla is named first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19; but not in Acts 18:2 or 1 Cor 16:19), perhaps “signaling her more prominent role in the early church” (Scott Spencer)158—or perhaps her dominant personality compared to her more passive spouse. Also, Derrick Bailey (1955) reminds us that classical literature shows us that many males in Paul’s day who engaged in homosexual acts were simply “dissolute heterosexuals.”159
Yet, various issues can be consolidated and simplified: By using malakoi Paul in the world in which he lived probably had in mind: (1) effeminate males who have forsaken their biological (genital) gender designation, looking and dressing like women and some even castrating themselves; (2) males who disgrace themselves by seeking the feminine sexual position to be anally penetrated; (3) males who freely decide to become prostitutes, offering their bodies for money to older men; and (4) more broadly those who lack self-control in general or in sexual matters, which no doubt would have been viewed as including the above. Then by using arsenokoitai Paul probably had in mind: (1) males who seduce youths (in Roman times the latter were primarily slaves) and then use them sexually like a woman; (2) males who anally penetrate other males and so degrade them, treating them as a woman; and (3) customers who visit or keep prostitutes. Now it is interesting to note that in four of the seven categories above the primary issue was gender transgression (males disgracing manhood by forsaking expected gender roles). As Martti Nissinen (1998) explains, it was fundamental throughout the whole ancient Near East that men be the active, penetrating sexual partners and women the passive, receiving partners; and transgressions of this gender boundary were (with a few exceptions) severely condemned, since the male was viewed as superior to the female.160 Thus, as John Elliott (2004) notes, in this patriarchal world, so male oriented and male dominated, “effeminate males” were scorned.161 Besides this, then, the other issues here for Paul, relating to male sexual abuse (and often engaged in by heterosexual and married men), were pederasty (sex with minors), prostitution (free youths who offer sex for sale and those who visit prostitutes), and other forced sexual acts (like sex with older slaves).
Apuleius. The Golden Ass, or A Book of Changes. Trans. with Introduction Joel C. Relihan. Indianapolis and Cambridge, UK:
Hackett, 2007.
Bailey,
Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian
Tradition. London: Longman,
Green, 1955.
Barclay,
John. “1 Corinthians.” In John Barton and John Muddiman,
eds., Oxford Bible Commentary, pp.
1108–1133. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 3rd ed. 1841.
Bellis, Alice O., and Terry
L. Hufford. Science,
Scripture, and Homosexuality. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2002.
Blount, Brian K. “Reading and Understanding the
New Testament on Homosexuality.”
In Choon-Leong Seow, ed., Homosexuality
and Christian Community, pp. 28–38. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Brake, Donald L., Sr. “Versions, English.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
5, pp. 740–760.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.
Brill, Stephanie, and Rachel Pepper. The Transgender Child. San Francisco: Cleis, 2008.
Brooten, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1996.
Brown, Dennis. “Jerome.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
3, pp. 245–246.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Bullough,
Vern L. “Eunuchs in History
and Society.” In Shaun
Tougher, ed., Eunuchs in Antiquity and
Beyond, pp. 1–17.
London: Gerald Duckworth and the Classical Press of Wales, 2002.
Burge,
Gary M., Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The
New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural
Contexts. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009.
Ciampa,
Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner.
“1 Corinthians.” In
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary
on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp. 695–752. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; and
Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007.
Coleman, Peter. Gay Christians: A Moral Dilemma. London: SCM Press; and Philadelphia: Trinity Press,
1989.
Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians.
(Sacra Pagina)
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999.
________. Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their
Implications for Today.
Minneapolis: Fortress, (1988) 2007.
Cross, F. L. (Frank), and E.
A. Livingstone (Elizabeth), eds.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1958)
1974, reprinted with corrections 1978.
Day, David. Things They Never Told You in Sunday School: A Primer for the Christian
Homosexual. Austin:
Liberty Press, 1987.
De Young, James B. Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and
Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000.
Dods, Marcus. First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Expositor’s Bible) New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1898.
Elliott, John H. “No Kingdom of God for
Softies? Or, What Was Paul Really
Saying?” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 34 (2004),
pp. 17–40.
Erdemgil, Selahattin. Ephesus. Trans.
Nukhet Eraslan. Istanbul:
Net Turistik Yayinlar, (Turkish 1986) English 1992.
Fee, Gordon D. First Epistle to the Corinthians. (New International Commentary on the New Testament) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “1 Corinthians.” In James L. Mays, ed., HarperCollins Bible Commentary, pp. 1074–1092. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisico, (1988) 2000.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians.
(Anchor Yale Bible)
New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008.
Fredrickson, David E. “Natural and Unnatural Use in
Romans 1:24–27: Paul and the Philosophical Critique of Eros.” In David L. Balch, ed., Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture,
Furnish, Victor Paul. “The Bible and Homosexuality:
Reading the Texts in Context.”
In Jeffrey S. Siker, ed., Homosexuality
in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, pp. 18–35. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1994.
________. The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. Nashville: Abingdon, (1979) 1985.
Green,
Jay P., Sr., ed. Interlinear Bible: Hebrew–Greek–English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, (1976) 1986.
Greenberg, David F. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Grimsrud, Ted. “A Theology of Welcome.” In Michael A. King, ed., Stumbling toward a Genuine Conversation on
Homosexuality, pp. 237–244. Telford, PA: Cascadia, 2007.
Hodge, Charles. An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Carter, 1860.
Holy Bible . . . King James Version (American Bible Society). New York: American
Bible Society, first issued 1932, then slightly revised 1962 (though no date
information is given inside the Bible).
Holy Bible: King James Version (Hendrickson Publishers
Edition), or the first printing was
called the Pew Bible—KJV. With Preface by John R.
Kohlenberger III, noting that the primary source for this text was F. H. A.
Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible
(1873), although now a verse form is used. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, first printing 2007, with
additional printings in 2008 and 2009.
Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978.
Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians.
(Abingdon New Testament Commentaries) Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.
Janes, Dominic. ”England.” In George E. Haggerty, ed., Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia,
2: [Gay Men], pp. 275–279. New York and London: Garland, 2000.
Kahan, Jeffrey. “James I (1566–1625).” In George E. Haggerty, ed., Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia, 2: [Gay Men], pp. 491–492.
New York and London: Garland, 2000.
Katz, Jonathan N. “The Age of Sodomical Sin, 1607–1740.” In Jonathan Goldberg, ed., Reclaiming Sodom, pp. 43–58. New York and London: Routledge,
1994.
Keener, Craig S. 1–2 Corinthians.
Cambridge: University Press, 2005.
Kling, Christian F. First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. (A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: New
Testament) Trans. from the
2nd revised German edition, with additions by Daniel W. Poor. New York: C. Scribner, 1868.
Kraus, C. Norman. “Making Theological and Ethical
Decisions: Contextualizing the Bible.” In C. Norman Kraus, ed., To Continue the Dialogue: Biblical Interpretation and Homosexuality,
pp. 256–279. Telford,
PA: Pandora, 2001.
Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology
in Late Antiquity.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Lias, John J. First Epistle to the Corinthians. Cambridge: University Press, 1886.
Lull, David J. 1 Corinthians.
Revised and expanded ed. of William A. Beardslee’s First Corinthians: A Commentary for Today. St. Louis: Chalice, 2007.
Madvig,
Donald H. “Corinth.” In Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
1, pp. 772–774. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
McDonald, Lee Martin. “Ephesus.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
2, pp. 276–278.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual (1976). Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1976.
Minwalla, Framji. “Theater: Premodern and Early
Modern.” In George E.
Haggerty, ed., Gay Histories and
Cultures: An Encyclopedia, 2: [Gay Men], pp. 873–878. New York and London: Garland, 2000.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Corinth.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
1, pp. 732–735.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
New Oxford American Dictionary.
Ed. Erin McKean.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1998) 2005.
Nissinen, Martti. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Trans. Kirsi Stjerna from
Finnish. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1998.
Norton, David. The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today. Cambridge: University Press,
2011.
Papahatzis, Nicos. Ancient Corinth: The Museums of Corinth, Isthmia and Sicyon. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1977,
repr. 1991.
Patai, Raphael. Family, Love and the Bible. London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1960.
Petersen, William L. “Can
ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ Be
Translated by ‘Homosexuals’? (1 Cor. 9.10; 1 Tim. 1.10).” Vigiliae Christianae, 40 (1986), pp. 187–191.
Powell, Mark A. “The Bible and
Homosexuality.” In James M.
Childs, Jr., ed., Faithful Conversation:
Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, pp. 19–40. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Random House Dictionary of the English Language.
Jess Stern, ed. New
York: Random House, 1966.
Richardson, Neil. Paul for Today: New Perspectives on a Controversial Apostle. London: Epworth, 2008.
Robertson, Archibald, and
Alfred Plummer. A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the
Corinthians.
(International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments) New York: C.
Scribner’s Sons, 1911.
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, (2006) 2009.
Rosner, Brian S. “Temple Prostitution in 1
Corinthians 6:12–20.” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998), pp. 336–351.
Ruden, Sarah. Paul among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His
Own Time. New York:
Pantheon Books, 2010.
Sampley,
J. Paul. “First Letter to
the Corinthians.” In Leander
E. Keck, ed., New Interpreter’s Bible,
10, pp. 773–1003.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2002.
Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight & Narrow?
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Schroeder, David. “Homosexuality: Biblical,
Theological, and Polity Issues.”
In C. Norman Kraus, ed., To
Continue the Dialogue: Biblical Interpretation and Homosexuality, pp. 62–75. Telford, PA: Pandora, 2001.
Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Cultural Background for
Contemporary Debate.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Smith, R. R. R. Hellenstic Sculpture: A Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991.
Spencer, F. Scott. “Aquila and Priscilla.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
1, p. 211. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2006.
Strong, James, comp. Strongest Strong’s: Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Revised John R. Kohlenberger III
and James A. Swanson. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Thiselton, Anthony C. “Chloe.” In Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.,
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
1, pp. 594. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2006.
________. “Corinthians, First Letter
to.” In Katharine Doob
Sakenfeld, ed., New Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, 1, pp. 735–744. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Turcan, Robert. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Trans. Antonia Nevill. Oxford: Blackwell, (French 1989) English 1996.
Van der Pool, Charles,
trans. Apostolic Bible: Polyglot. Newport, OR: Apostolic Press, (1996) 2006.
Waetjen, Herman C. “Same-Sex Sexual Relations in
Antiquity and Sexuality and Sexual Identity in Contemporary American
Society.” In Robert L. Brawley,
ed., Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality:
Listening to Scripture, pp. 103–116. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Watson, Nigel. First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Epworth, 2005.
Weller, Barry. “English Literature.” In George E. Haggerty, ed., Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia, 2: [Gay Men], pp. 279–292.
New York and London: Garland, 2000.
Williams, Craig A. Roman Sexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Wilson, Glenn, and Qazi
Rahman. Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.
Witham, Robert. Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Douai, France: s.n., 1730.
Wright, David F. “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of
ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ (1
Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10).” Vigiliae Christianae, 38 (1984), pp. 125–153.
Young, Michael B. James VI and I and the History of Homosexuality. Houndmills and London: Macmillan
Press, 2000.
Younger, John G. Sex in the Ancient World, A to Z. New York and London: Routledge, 2005.
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS (indicated
by codes in main text) – Authorized Version, 1611. Contemporary English Version,
1995. English Standard
Version, 2001. Good News
Bible, 1976. Inclusive
Language Bible, 1994. International
Standard Version, 2000. Jerusalem
Bible, 1966. King James
Version (American Bible Society), 1932. King James Version (or Pew Bible, Hendrickson
Publishers), 2007.
| Main Menu | Back to Homosexuality & the Bible |