rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (01/03/85)
Please pardon the ridiculous delay in finishing this series. Many
thanks for the interest displayed towards & compliments given to
these postings. If you liked them that much, you all should buy
a copy of the book and read it from cover to cover!
THE LAST OF DON CAPRIO'S QUOTATIONS
Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in his book CHRISTIANITY,
SOCIAL TOLERANCE, & HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 1981,
$9.95 in paperback). All errors of fact or interpretation are mine.
Bible Versions:
===============
JB Jerusalem Bible (in English)
JBF JB in French; JBG in German; JBI in Italian; JBS in Spanish
KJV King James Version RSV Revised Standard Version
NAB New American Bible NEB New English Bible
C 1941 Confraternity Edition , based on Rheims-Douay & new research
C1 1953 Confraternity Edition, based on Rheims-Challoner & new research
NIV ??? GN Good News For Modern Man
LB Luther's Bible LS Sainte Bible
========================================================================
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (continued)
Boswell (337-8) supplies more evidence of the vagaries of translation
for the words:
Greek PLEONEK'TAI: covetous C,C1,KJV
greedy RSV,GN,NIV
grabbers NEB
usurers JB
misers NAB
Greek HARPAGES: swindlers NEB,JB,NIV
evil-tongued C1
extortioners KJV
robbers NAB,RSV
greedy C
lawbreakers GN
"fornicators"/"the sexually immoral" purport to translate Greek POR'NEIA;
"sodomites"/"homosexual offenders", Latin SODOMITIA from Greek ARSENOKOI'TAI;
"the effeminate"/"male prostitutes", Greek MALAKOI'.
ARSENOKOITAI receives widely varying renderings: "homosexuals" (RSV,NEB,JBS),
"perverts" (JBI), "sodomites" (C,NAB,JB), "child molesters" (LB,JBG), "people
with infamous habits" (LS,JBF). Note the range of these translations: they
can all be understood as referring to homosexuals only if you assume the mod-
ern stereotype that homosexuals are effeminate, promiscuous, & pederastic,
only if you're homophobic after the current fashion. Whatever the original
meaning of the term ARSENOKOITAI, the single source of these translations,
the translations provide a virtual analysis of the modern stereotype of
homosexuality. This in itself should make us suspicious.
But the Greco-Roman world did not associate any of the components of the
modern stereotype with homosexuality. Take the term MALAKOI, "effeminate"/
"homosexual offender". All English translations invest it with a homosexual
meaning, but none of the best foreign translations do (ie, JBF). It means,
literally, the "soft [ones]":
MALAKOS, ("sexually immoral" in the above), meaning "soft"
in the sense of "sick, weak-willed, wanton", never generi-
cally described gay people or acts in Greek, but did denote
"masturbation" for all Christians until the Reformation and
for Catholics until this century (p. 107). It's an extremely
common Greek word.
The ancients did not associate homosexuality with effeminacy. If anything,
popular homosexual folk heroes (historical lovers like Harmodios & Aristo-
geiton, or legendary figures like Hercules) and then-common ideas about
the origin of sexuality tended to attribute hypermanliness to gay men
and congenital feminine qualities to heterosexual males (Plato's SYMPO-
SIUM, posted to net.motss a while back, provides a famous version of this).
Patristic texts never use MALAKOI to denote effeminacy, but other words
such as THELY'DRIOS, ANDRO'GYNOS, TON ANDRO'N HOI GYNAIKO'DEIS.
Moreover, "effeminacy" in ancient texts can be a descriptive term, rather
than one of moral censure, despite the strong ancient sanction against
effeminacy in adult free males (this was the "official" public attitude,
at any rate; who knows how much actual life deviated from it? I don't
think anyone has tried to research this topic). For example, otherwise
virtuous & manly figures (like kings & generals etc.) are called MALAKOS
in the sense of "effeminate" merely to indicate a gentle disposition or
the fact that as children they were raised predominantly by women. The
fact that clearly homosexual people were occasionally described as
MALAKOS does not clinch a homosexual sense for the word any more "than
the application of `proper' to `Englishman' is proof that `proper' means
`English'." (340)
Nor did ancients associate child molestation with homosexuality. Both
Greeks and Romans had strict & very clear laws to protect children, yet
homosexuality flourished in both societies as a legitimate & extremely
common form of sexual & emotional expression (see chapters 1 & 2).
But let's examine an "offending" term in detail to get a glimpse of
Boswell's analysis. What did ARSENOKOITAI mean?
The prefix ARSENO- simply means "male". Its relationship to
the second half of the compound is ambiguous: in bald English
the compound means "male fuckers," but it is not clear whether
"male" designates the object or the gender of the second half.
The English expression "lady killer," when written, conveys
the same ambiguity: in speech, emphasis would indicate whether
"lady" designates the victim or the gender of the "killer,"
but in print there is no way to distinguish whether the phrase
means "a lady who kills," or "a person who kills ladies." This
is a particularly revealing parallel, since a third and largely
unrelated meaning (i.e., "wolf," or "Don Juan") is actually the
common sense of the term but could not be deduced from the con-
stituent parts, a telling example of the inadequacy of lexico-
graphical inference unsupported by contextual evidence. (342)
But can't we decipher ARSENOKOITAI by analogy to other similar Greek
compounds? It's very tricky. For example, PAIDERASTAI', from PAIS,
"child", here "male child", and ERASTAI, "lovers", means "boy lovers".
But PAIDO'TROTOS, from PAIS and TROTOS, "wounded", means "wounded by
children" and not "a wounder of children". And PAIDOPO'ROS, from
PAIS and POROS, "passage", meaning "through which a child passes",
contains no relation of either subject or object between the two
halves of the compound.
The "obvious" relationship between the two parts of compounds
of this sort is not susceptible of formulation without careful
analysis of individual cases. It would certainly be wrong to
assume that because "pyromania" refers to an obsession with
fire, "nymphomania" must describe an obsession with brides: in
fact, it describes the opposite, an obsession with men, and the
prefix "nympho-" ("bride"), although a noun, acts as the modi-
fier of "mania" rather than its object. (342-343)
Furthermore, compounds with ARSENO- follow a general pattern: those that
use "male" as an object are spelled ARRENO-, those that use it as a subject
are spelled ARSENO-. The few exceptions to this pattern:
...are generally words in which no confusion between adjective
and object could arise, such as ARRENO'PAIS ["male child"], or
in which the semantic import of the word would be the same
regardless of the grammatical relation of the constituent
parts... (343)
ARSENOKOITAI thus means "males who fuck". In fact, it referred to prosti-
tutes. Male prostitutes who took the active role sexually were common in
the Hellenistic world of Paul's day, servicing women and men. (344)
If Paul's use of ARSENOKOITAI is a case of metonymy (a figure of speech
in which one thing stands for another by virtue of a relation obtaining
between the two; eg., "We read VIRGIL", that is, we read the POEMS of
Virgil), then it means (prostitutes') CLIENTS (of BOTH sexes).
NOWHERE in the "vast" Greek literature on homoeroticism does the term
ARSENOKOITAI appear: not in Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch;
Josephus, Philo (even though both incorrectly believed Sodom was destroyed
to punish homosexuality); John Chrysostom, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria,
Gregory of Nyssa, etc. (345-348)
Even more persuasive is the fact that, for example, John Chrysostom,
who "wrote copiously" & mistakenly about homosexuality in regard to
every biblical text that could conceivably suggest it, NOT ONCE men-
tioned ARSENOKOITAI in his exegesis of those texts (Corinthians 6:9,
1 Timothy 1:10) that contain the word. (348)
[As a homophobe, Chrysostom was in a small minority of opinion in
the early church.]
Boswell then shows that the Latin translation of ARSENOKOITAI ("mas-
culores concubitores") in the works of Latin church fathers also pro-
vides no support for a homosexual interpretation. (348-349)
What about PORNEIA? "In Attic Greek PORNEIA were houses of male pro-
stitution, in which POR'NOI practiced their trade quite legally and
with little stigma..." (336) "...in the Koine of the New Testament
PORNEIA is a feminine singular and no longer applies to male brothels.
What it does apply to is less clear..." (336-337) English translators
often render it as "immoral". It also legitimately suggests "prostitu-
tion" since POR'NE kept its meaning of "female prostitute". The other
common translation of PORNEIA is "fornication", which:
...is equally if not more misleading, since (a) popular use of
this word is considerably at variance with its technical mean-
ing in moral theology [FORNICATIO referred exclusively to hete-
rosexual indulgence in the early church; "Beginning in the 8th
century some prominent theologians did subsume homosexual be-
havior under FORNICATIO, but by the period of the Scholastics
the older use again prevailed." (footnote 42, 103)], and (b) it
too originally meant prostitution--a fact which was known to
Latin writers throughout most of Christian history and influ-
enced their understanding of Paul's attitudes in ways in which
it does not affect modern readers unaware of the etymology of
the term. (footnote 4, 337)
The word PORNEIA retains a vagueness or generality without any homosexual
sense in its other occurrences in the New Testament (see page 412 of the
Index of Greek Terms for references in Boswell), which is reflected in
the modern renderings "fornication" (my childhood pastor thought fornica-
tion was ANY interest in sex at all, & would deliver thunderous sermons
while most of the congregation quietly listened, having no idea what he
was talking about) and "sexual immorality".
Thus, Corinthians 6:9-10 denounces sexual excess, adultery, prostitution,
lack of character, & other time-honored vices, but not homosexuality.
Analysis of terms, context, & the Hellenistic environment all refute a
homosexual interpretation. The only conceivable way to connect the text
to homosexuality, & it is far-fetched, is to introduce precisely those
modern homophobic assumptions that directly contradict what we know to be
ancient attitudes & ideas on homosexuality, sexual behavior, & sexuality,
and even then all the contrary results of philological analysis must be
ignored. Thus, "male fucker" can become "child molester" (LB,JBG) ONLY
if you posit that all homosexuals have always lusted after small children,
in gross contrast, by the way, to ancient Greek PAIDERASTEIA ("pederasty"),
which involved teenagers, usually 14-18 years old. [See Kenneth Dover's
acclaimed & ground-breaking study, GREEK HOMOSEXUALITY (Harvard U. Press,
1977).]
Another point should be made: about reliance in general on scripture.
Boswell notes (p. 92) just how slight a role (what we know as) the Bible
has actually played in the formation & development of Christianity.
Catholicism did not officially establish the "canon" (or approved version)
of the Bible until the Council of Trent in 1546! Wide consensus about the
contents of the New Testament dates only from the 8th century. The most
popular and venerated literature of early Christians included many apocryphal
books and excluded some later approved (e.g., the Apocalypse). [In short,
the Bible as we know it was NOT the scripture of the "primitive church",
a church which served as a model & ideal not only for ALL the Protestant
reformers, but for evangelical Christians down through the ages as well.]
The New Testament itself was not "THE ONLY OR EVEN THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF
EARLY CHRISTIAN ETHICS [my capitals]", and the elaborate prescriptions of
Mosaic Law in the Old Testament were most often deemed mainly or wholly
irrelevant to Christians by early church leaders, thinkers & adherents
(chapter 4, "The Scriptures", pp. 91-117, repeatedly illustrates this point).
I've only mentioned SOME of the more important points Boswell makes in his
analyses. He has much more to say, & I urge interested netters (once again)
to READ his book. This series was taken primarily from Chapter 4 and Appen-
dix 1.
END OF SERIES