9.7.12

Arsenokoitai

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitē), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:9-10:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitēs), for menstealers (slave traders), for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other things that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Arsenokoites (ἀρσενοκοίτης). Said to be a compound word made up by Paul taken from the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Leviticus 20:13 (ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην [arrhēn/arsēn] and κοίτην [koitēn].



'Malakoi' is believed to be a passive homosexual while 'arsenokoites' is believed to be the aggressive homosexual by so-named "Bible Conservatives." If one word goes with the other to emphasize both sides of a gay relationship, why is 'malakoi' left out of 1 Timothy? If 'arsenokoite' is the catch-all word to mean all homosexuality, why is 'malakoi' used in 1 Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can not apply to both partners in a sexual act and cannot be a general term for all homosexual activity.

What we see with Paul, as read by "conservative" exegetes, is the stereotypical "one has to be the female" supposition of a homosexual coupling by anti-gay proponents who believe all homosexual couplings must mimic the male penetrating the female paradigm of a heterosexual coupling. This bears no semblance to most current homosexual relationships. In other words, IF Paul had aggressive males with passive males in mind when writing 1 Corinthians, it can only be applied to Paul's Roman contemporaries who were free men past a certain age in Roman society who strictly played the role of aggressive male (penetrator) with those beneath him in Roman societal standing.

Also, If Paul meant to convey a condemnation of all homosexuality to the audience who was at the time reading his 1 Corinthian and 1 Timothy letters, they would have not gotten that meaning from what he wrote in those passages. Outside of those two Biblical instances of that word, no other written source links the word with homosexuality outside of exploitation, pederasty, or economic injustice. The people reading Paul would have understood the word in those contexts. Paul indeed had access to words to convey a passive and aggressive homosexual (Greek slang; kinaidhos/kolombaras) or even a word for a lesbian (tribas) that is completely absent in any word form with what were popular and understood words of his day with homosexuality that would have left no question to his audiences what he meant.

Another mystery is if Paul wanted to condemn homosexuals in Corinthians and Timothy, why did he feel he had to reach to the Jewish Code, a holiness code that he says is a curse to us (Romans 6:14, 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6, Galatians 2:21, 3:23-25, 5:14) that's also silent on lesbianism to do it? Even if Paul used Leviticus to condemn homosexuality with compounding words,* the Levitical passage he uses is only concerned with anal penetrative sex according to the Rabbinical understanding of the Levitical verses (Sifra, Qedoshim 10:11; bSan 54a–b). According to Rambam, the Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar denotes only penetrative anal sex; "When one male copulates another male... from THE MOMENT of (anal) penetration... both are punishable... " (Rambam, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 1:14). Apart from penetration, it was permissible for two men to touch the penis of each other (GenR 59:8).


Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77 (the earliest use of 'arsenokoitai' apart from Paul from a pagan source) lists it within its injustices category and not in its sexual category; "Do not steal seeds... Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information..." Acts of John place it with economic injustices; "...robber, defrauder, arsenokoitai, thief..." Porphyrius places it between theft and witchcraft (Contra Christianos 023 88.13).


Arsen is placed with economic injustices by Theophiles of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus.

Koitai
, in the Attic form arrenokoitas, was found on an inscription of a gate leading to the city of Thessaloniki (Greek Anthology 9.686.5.):

"...barbaron ou tromeeis, ouk arrenas arrenokoitas" ("you need not dread the barbarian nor the male arrenokoitai)." Public kidnappers for the purpose of trafficking (shanghaied) is more of a realistic placement here than "male homosexual" since homosexual practice was not forbidden in Thessaloniki.


1 Timothy patterned the last half of his sin list on the Decologue (the last 6 Commandments of the 10 Commandments). Timothy extended his adultery prohibition to include "boy raping" with arsenokoitai, a common practice in Christian sin lists that pattern themselves on the Decalogue. The specified "raping of boys," not male/male sex, was an extension of the 7th commandment along with; "Do not have sex with married women," "Do not have sex with prostitutes." The Didache and The Epistle of Barnabas used the word arsenokoitai to replace "boy raper" as an extension of; "Do not commit adultery." A word trick popular at the time with Christian sin lists commenting on acts of adultery at the time.

The word is used to show a powerful aggressor raping a weaker one. Some translations do in fact put arsenokoitai as "boy rapers." (Jerusalem Bible, German 1968, "child molesters." "Dutch NBG translation of 1951, "knapenschenders" ("boy-molesters").

In the Apology of Aristides 13, Fragmenta 12, 9-13.5.4, 'arsenokoitai' refers to Zeus abducting and raping a boy named Ganymede. In Hippolitus Refutatio chapter 5, Nass, a Satanic being, is said to have had Adam sexually "like a boy." Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 54a puts arsenos koiten in the context of only boy sex. Maimonides on the verse states it's about: 'child corrupting' (Moses Maimonides "The Guide for the Perplexed" p. 376). In the Babylonian Talmud Nid-dah 13b talks about "sporting with children," an explicit reference to pederasty. 


Conclusion: Paul would not have used 'arsenekoitai' to convey a condemnation of male homosexuality with the absence of female homosexuality or condemn male homosexuality beyond the Levitical prohibition of anal sex that in all likelihood took place within the idolatry practices of the Canaanites (my own belief).
It looks like the word conveys either a pederast action, possibly exploitive action, or in all likelihood if going to only the Leviticus source with the compounding of words, homosexual acts of idolatry apart from pederasty. So no, arsenokoite is not a "Homosexual" nor a prohibitive of "Homosexuality."






*"If a man [ish] lies with a male [zakhar] as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (Lev 20:13)." 

Two different types of males are in this verse [a man is called an 'ish,' followed by who he is not to lie down with, a male called a 'zakhur']. Note; ish is not placed with ish (man/man) or zakhur with zakhur (male/male) in the verse. 
Only two distinctions make a zakhur male, not an ish man. One is age, a male boy not yet a man ('zakan' is "beard," denoting age. 'zakayn' is "elder" in Hebrew). The other is a male having a religious distinction. Not excluded from this are priestly males (Assinu/Qadesh, also mentioned in Deuteronomy) in the land of Canaan who hold a function in religious idolatry prohibited to Jewish men whose cult practices involved homosexuality in the service of Moloch worship. My personal view with my corroborating research.





copyright

copyright